Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess patient preferences for two osteoporosis medications. DESIGN: Women aged 50+ were surveyed via the Internet to assess preferences for two osteoporosis medication profiles. Drug A and Drug B, consistent with ibandronate and alendronate, respectively, differed by: time on market (recently vs. 10 years), dosing frequency (monthly vs. weekly), effectiveness (not proven vs. proven to reduce non-spine or hip fracture after 3 years) and dosing procedure (60 vs. 30 min wait before eating/drinking). Each profile had the same out-of-pocket costs, side-effects, potential for drug interaction and spine fracture efficacy. Patients force ranked and rated the importance of each attribute. Subgroup comparisons included diagnosed vs. at-risk respondents and treated vs. untreated respondents. RESULTS: Among the 999 respondents, Drug B was preferred by 96%. Effectiveness was ranked as the most important determinant of preference (79% ranked it #1) compared with time on market (14%), dosing procedure (4%) and dosing frequency (3%). Effectiveness had the highest mean importance rating on a scale of 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important): mean (SD) = 6.1 (1.8), followed by time on market: 4.7 (1.7), dosing procedure: 4.6 (1.4) and dosing frequency: 4.5 (1.4). No significant differences in profile choice were found across study subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The drug profile showing reductions in non-vertebral and hip fracture risk was chosen by almost all respondents. Drug effectiveness was the most important determinant of preference, while dosing frequency was the least important determinant. Incorporation of patient preferences in the medication decision-making process could enhance patient compliance and clinical outcomes.