Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the MEdication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS)

Tracey-Lea Laba, Jo-anne Brien, Marlene Fransen, Stephen Jan, Tracey-Lea Laba, Jo-anne Brien, Marlene Fransen, Stephen Jan

Abstract

Background: Often affecting knee joints, osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis and by 2020 is predicted to become the fourth leading cause of disability globally. Without cure, medication management is symptomatic, mostly with simple analgesics such as acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and glucosamine sulfate. Adherence to arthritis medications is generally low. Intentional non-adherence, that is deliberate decision-making about the use of analgesics, occurs in OA patients. To date, a limited number of studies have explored medication-taking decisions in people with OA nor the extent to which individuals' trade off one treatment factor for another in their decision-making using quantitative techniques. This study aimed to estimate the relative influence of medication-related factors and respondent characteristics on decisions to continue medications among people with symptomatic OA.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among participants attending end-of-study visits in the Long-term Evaluation of Glucosamine Sulfate (LEGS) study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00513422). The paper-based survey was used to estimate the relative importance of seven medication specific factors (pain efficacy, mode of action, dose frequency, treatment schedule, side effects, prescription, and out-of-pocket costs) and respondent characteristics on decisions to continue medications.

Results: 188 (response rate 37%) completed surveys were returned. Four of the seven medication factors (side effects, out-of-pocket costs, mode of action, treatment schedule) had a significant effect on the choice to continue medication; patient characteristics did not. Assuming equivalent pain efficacy and disease-modifying properties for glucosamine, the positive relative likelihood of continuing with sustained-release acetaminophen was equivalent to glucosamine. By contrast, the negative relative likelihood of NSAID continuation was mostly driven by the side effect profile. The predicted probability of continuing with glucosamine decreased with increasing out-of-pocket costs.

Conclusions: This study has characterised the complexity of medication-taking decisions that potentially underpin intentional non-adherent behaviour for people with symptomatic OA. In particular, medication risks and cost were important and ought to be borne into considerations in interpreting clinical trial evidence for practice. Ultimately addressing these factors may be the way forward to realising the full potential of health and economic benefits from the efficacious and safe use of OA medications.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relative likelihood of continuing a medication.

References

    1. Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81:646–656.
    1. Access Economics Pty Ltd. Painful realities: The economic impact of arthritis in Australia in 2007. 2007. (A Report for Arthritis Australia). available online at:
    1. AIHW. Medication use for arthritis and osteoporosis. Arthritis series no. 11. Cat no. PHE 121. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW); 2010.
    1. Carr A. Barriers to the effectiveness of any intervention in OA. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2001;15:645–656. doi: 10.1053/berh.2001.0179.
    1. Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, Benkhalti M, Guyatt G, McGowan J, Towheed T, Welch V, Wells G, Tugwell P. American College of Rheumatology 2012 Recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64:465–474.
    1. Wegman A, van der Windt D, van Tulder M, Stalman W, de Vries T. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs or acetaminophen for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee? A systematic review of evidence and guidelines. J Rheumatol. 2004;31:344–354.
    1. Briggs A, Scott E, Steele K. Impact of osteoarthritis and analgesic treatment on quality of life of an elderly population. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33:1154–1159. doi: 10.1345/aph.18411.
    1. MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. The escalating cost and prevalence of alternative medicine. Prev Med. 2002;35:166–173. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1057.
    1. Sibbritt D, Adams J, Lui CW, Broom A, Wardle J. Who uses glucosamine and why? A study of 266,848 Australians aged 45 years and older. PLoS One. 2012;7:e41540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041540.
    1. Black C, Clar C, Henderson R, MacEachern C, McNamee P, Quayyum Z, Royle P, Thomas S. The clinical effectiveness of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements in slowing or arresting progression of osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–148.
    1. Bruyere O, Reginster JY. Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate as therapeutic agents for knee and hip osteoarthritis. Drugs & aging. 2007;24:573–580. doi: 10.2165/00002512-200724070-00005.
    1. About the PBS. .
    1. Blamey R, Jolly K, Greenfield S, Jobanputra P. Patterns of analgesic use, pain and self-efficacy: a cross-sectional study of patients attending a hospital rheumatology clinic. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:137. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-10-137.
    1. Cryer B, Luo X, Assaf AR, Sands G, Mardekian J. Persistence with non-selective NSAIDs and celecoxib among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:295–302. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.542056.
    1. Dominick KL, Baker TA. Racial and ethnic differences in osteoarthritis: prevalence, outcomes, and medical care. Ethn Dis. 2004;14:558–566.
    1. Punchak S, Goodyer LI, Miskelly F. Use of an electronic monitoring aid to investigate the medication pattern of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs prescribed for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39:448–449. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.4.448.
    1. de Klerk E, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, van der Tempel H, Urquhart J, van der Linden S. Patient compliance in rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and gout. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:44–54.
    1. Salt E, Peden A. The complexity of the treatment: the decision-making process among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Qual Health Res. 2011;21:214–222. doi: 10.1177/1049732310381086.
    1. Lehane E, McCarthy G. Intentional and unintentional medication non-adherence: a comprehensive framework for clinical research and practice? A discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44:1468–1477. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.07.010.
    1. Sale JE, Gignac M, Hawker G. How “bad” does the pain have to be? A qualitative study examining adherence to pain medication in older adults with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:272–278. doi: 10.1002/art.21853.
    1. Milder TY, Lipworth WL, Williams KM, Ritchie JE, Day RO. “It looks after me”: how older patients make decisions about analgesics for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:1280–1286. doi: 10.1002/acr.20514.
    1. Milder TY, Williams KM, Ritchie JE, Lipworth WL, Day RO. Use of NSAIDs for osteoarthritis amongst older-aged primary care patients: engagement with information and perceptions of risk. Age Ageing. 2011;40:254–259. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq160.
    1. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, McGarry T, Sheldon R, Chancellor J. Patients’ preferences for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:337–345.
    1. Fraenkel L, Bogardus ST Jr, Concato J, Wittink DR. Treatment options in knee osteoarthritis: the patient’s perspective. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1299–1304. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.12.1299.
    1. Fraenkel L, Wittink DR, Concato J, Fried T. Informed choice and the widespread use of antiinflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51:210–214. doi: 10.1002/art.20247.
    1. Fraenkel L, Wittink DR, Concato J, Fried T. Are preferences for cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors influenced by the certainty effect? J Rheumatol. 2004;31:591–593.
    1. Richardson CG, Chalmers A, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Klinkhoff A, Carswell A, Kopec JA. Pain relief in osteoarthritis: patients’ willingness to risk medication-induced gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular complications. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1569–1575.
    1. Hauber AB, Arden NK, Mohamed AF, Reed Johnson F, Peloso PM, Watson DJ, Mavros P, Gammaitoni A, Sen SS, Taylor SD. A discrete-choice experiment of United Kingdom patients’ willingness to risk adverse events for improved function and pain control in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(2):289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.11.007.
    1. Lamiraud K, Geoffard P-Y. Therapeutic non-adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences? Health Econ. 2007;16:1185–1204. doi: 10.1002/hec.1214.
    1. Laba TL, Brien JA, Jan S. Understanding rational non-adherence to medications. A discrete choice experiment in a community sample in Australia. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:61. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-61.
    1. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–413. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.
    1. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–677. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004.
    1. Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4:527–546. doi: 10.1017/S1744133109990193.
    1. Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:443–457.
    1. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55–64.
    1. Piette JD, Heisler M, Krein S, Kerr EA. The role of patient-physician trust in moderating medication nonadherence due to cost pressures. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1749–1755. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.15.1749.
    1. Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR, Rogers WH, Taira DH, Lieberman N, Ware JE. The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care. 1998;36:728–739. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199805000-00012.
    1. Henscher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
    1. Louviere J, Henscher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
    1. Ngene 1.0.
    1. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Office Excel 2003. 2003. (Microsoft Office Professional Editions).
    1. Buckland-Wright JC, Wolfe F, Ward RJ, Flowers N, Hayne C. Substantial superiority of semiflexed (MTP) views in knee osteoarthritis: a comparative radiographic study, without fluoroscopy, of standing extended, semiflexed (MTP), and schuss views. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:2664–2674.
    1. Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16:827–840. doi: 10.1002/hec.1197.
    1. Hall J, Kenny P, King M, Louviere J, Viney R, Yeoh A. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ. 2002;11:457–465. doi: 10.1002/hec.694.
    1. Forest plots in excel software(Data sheet) Available at Please amend to .
    1. Lancsar EJ, Hall JP, King M, Kenny P, Louviere JJ, Fiebig DG, Hossain I, Thien FC, Reddel HK, Jenkins CR. Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology (Carlton, Vic) 2007;12:127–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2006.01005.x.
    1. Therapeutics Goods Administration. Lumaracoxib (Prexige): Medicine recall. 2007. Available at .
    1. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Vioxx (Rofecoxib): Medicine Recall. 2004. Available at .
    1. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication [see comment] N Engl J Med. 2005;353:487–497. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra050100.
    1. Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ. 2004;13:397–402. doi: 10.1002/hec.821.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner