IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i4p461-473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Duration of Treatment Effect Should Be Considered in the Design and Interpretation of Clinical Trials: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Bethan Copsey

    (Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, UK)

  • James Buchanan

    (Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK)

  • Raymond Fitzpatrick

    (Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK)

  • Sarah E. Lamb

    (Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, UK)

  • Susan J. Dutton

    (Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, UK)

  • Jonathan A. Cook

    (Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, UK)

Abstract

Objective. This study examined whether duration of treatment effect should be considered in a benefit-risk assessment using a case study of osteoarthritis medications. Study Design and Setting. A discrete choice experiment was completed by 300 residents of the United Kingdom with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. In 16 choice tasks, participants selected their preferred option from 2 medications. Medications were described in terms of effect on pain, stiffness, and function; duration of treatment effect; and risk of heart attack and stomach ulcer bleeding. The analysis used mixed-effects logistic regression. Results. Pain, disease severity, and duration of treatment effect had the greatest influence on medication preferences, whereas stiffness did not significantly affect medication choice. Participants were willing to accept an increase in the risk of heart attack of 2.6% (95% confidence interval: 2.0% to 3.2%) to increase the duration of treatment effect from 1 month to 12 months. Reducing pain from moderate to mild was valued the same as increasing duration of effect from 1 month to 3 months; both were seen as equivalent to an absolute reduction of 1.2% in the risk of heart attack in the next year. Subgroup analysis suggested disease severity influenced patient preferences. Conclusions. Along with treatment benefits and risks, the results suggest that duration of treatment effect is an important factor in the medication choices of people with osteoarthritis. This could have implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials, for example, incorporating longer-term surveillance of trial participants and accounting for duration of treatment effect in risk-benefit assessments. Future research is needed to assess whether these findings are generalizable to other samples, disease areas, and levels of duration of effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Bethan Copsey & James Buchanan & Raymond Fitzpatrick & Sarah E. Lamb & Susan J. Dutton & Jonathan A. Cook, 2019. "Duration of Treatment Effect Should Be Considered in the Design and Interpretation of Clinical Trials: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 461-473, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:461-473
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19841877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19841877
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19841877?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    2. Patricia McGettigan & David Henry, 2011. "Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational Studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Damon Willems & Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter & Hessel H. Zee & Christopher J. Sayed & John R. Ingram & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2023. "Patient Preferences in the Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Results of a Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment in Europe," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(2), pages 153-164, March.
    2. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Christin Juhnke, 2021. "Personalized diabetes management: what do patients with diabetes mellitus prefer? A discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 425-443, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    2. Regier, Dean A. & Watson, Verity & Burnett, Heather & Ungar, Wendy J., 2014. "Task complexity and response certainty in discrete choice experiments: An application to drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 40-49.
    3. Nicolas Krucien & Jonathan Sicsic & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 572-586, April.
    4. Anna Kollerup & Jacob Ladenburg, 2021. "Willingness to pay for accommodating job attributes when returning to work after cancer treatment: A discrete choice experiment with Danish breast cancer survivors," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 35(3), pages 378-411, September.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    6. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    8. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    9. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    10. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    12. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    13. Noel, Lance & Papu Carrone, Andrea & Jensen, Anders Fjendbo & Zarazua de Rubens, Gerardo & Kester, Johannes & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2019. "Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applications: A Nordic choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 525-534.
    14. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    15. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    17. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    19. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Anna Bartczak & Wiktor Budziński & Marek Giergiczny, 2014. "Within- and between- sample tests of preference stability and willingness to pay for forest management," Working Papers 2014-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    20. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:461-473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.