Comment on: Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment

Comment on: Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European... Sir, I read with interest the article by Hiligsmann and colleagues [1] describing the use of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) tool to investigate patient preferences for different osteoporosis treatments across Europe. While providing some valuable insights, the paper raises a number of issues. The authors touch on these in the discussion, but do not fully bring out all the implications for the overall message. The first is the use of a DCE in the area of osteoporosis therapy. The authors acknowledge it has not been validated in this field. For a condition that is largely asymptomatic, and where there is a very rapid fall in compliance with treatment within the first few months even in patients who have suffered painful fractures [2], the utility of a DCE approach in asking a patient to contrast a hypothetical adverse effect with an imagined long term outcome is surely open to question. Every physician working in the field will have experienced a patient who swore absolute and conscientious compliance with medication, only for the truth to emerge of failure to take almost any treatment. It is difficult to see without a lot more validation work where a DCE tool fits into this scenario. The second is the failure to include osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fracture as potential adverse events. Although these may in actual practice be rare, many patients are very concerned about them [3, 4]; my experience is that they are the most discussed potential side effect of osteoporosis therapy in the clinic in the last 18 months, and for them not to be included in the project seems a significant omission, for which the authors offer no explanation. Funding: No specific funding was received from any funding bodies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors to carry out the work described in this manuscript. Disclosure statement: D.A. has received speaker fees from Internis Pharma and Consilient Health. References 1 Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD et al.   Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology  2017; 56: 1167– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2 Solomon DH, Avorn J, Katz JN et al.   Compliance with osteoporosis medications. Arch Intern Med  2005; 165: 2414– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3 Carr AJ, Thompson PW, Cooper C. Factors associated with adherence and persistence to bisphosphonate therapy in osteoporosis: a cross-sectional survey. Osteoporosis Int  2006; 17: 1638– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   4 Martín-Merino E, Huerta-Álvarez C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Montero-Corominas D. Cessation rate of anti-osteoporosis treatments and risk factors in Spanish primary care settings: a population-based cohort analysis. Arch Osteoporosis  2017; 12: 39. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Rheumatology Oxford University Press

Comment on: Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/comment-on-patients-preferences-for-anti-osteoporosis-drug-treatment-a-lBppiSEKIR
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
1462-0324
eISSN
1462-0332
D.O.I.
10.1093/rheumatology/kex429
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Sir, I read with interest the article by Hiligsmann and colleagues [1] describing the use of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) tool to investigate patient preferences for different osteoporosis treatments across Europe. While providing some valuable insights, the paper raises a number of issues. The authors touch on these in the discussion, but do not fully bring out all the implications for the overall message. The first is the use of a DCE in the area of osteoporosis therapy. The authors acknowledge it has not been validated in this field. For a condition that is largely asymptomatic, and where there is a very rapid fall in compliance with treatment within the first few months even in patients who have suffered painful fractures [2], the utility of a DCE approach in asking a patient to contrast a hypothetical adverse effect with an imagined long term outcome is surely open to question. Every physician working in the field will have experienced a patient who swore absolute and conscientious compliance with medication, only for the truth to emerge of failure to take almost any treatment. It is difficult to see without a lot more validation work where a DCE tool fits into this scenario. The second is the failure to include osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fracture as potential adverse events. Although these may in actual practice be rare, many patients are very concerned about them [3, 4]; my experience is that they are the most discussed potential side effect of osteoporosis therapy in the clinic in the last 18 months, and for them not to be included in the project seems a significant omission, for which the authors offer no explanation. Funding: No specific funding was received from any funding bodies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors to carry out the work described in this manuscript. Disclosure statement: D.A. has received speaker fees from Internis Pharma and Consilient Health. References 1 Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD et al.   Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology  2017; 56: 1167– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2 Solomon DH, Avorn J, Katz JN et al.   Compliance with osteoporosis medications. Arch Intern Med  2005; 165: 2414– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3 Carr AJ, Thompson PW, Cooper C. Factors associated with adherence and persistence to bisphosphonate therapy in osteoporosis: a cross-sectional survey. Osteoporosis Int  2006; 17: 1638– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   4 Martín-Merino E, Huerta-Álvarez C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Montero-Corominas D. Cessation rate of anti-osteoporosis treatments and risk factors in Spanish primary care settings: a population-based cohort analysis. Arch Osteoporosis  2017; 12: 39. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Journal

RheumatologyOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial