Quantifying Pill Disutility Associated With Starting Versus Continuing Cardioprotective Medication: A Randomized Experiment
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Quantifying patient-reported pill disutility is important for understanding the risk-benefit tradeoffs of taking medications. The objective of this study was to quantify and compare the pill disutility associated with starting a new medication and continuing an existing medication for cardiometabolic disease prevention in a sample of older adults in the United States.
METHODS:
We enrolled adults aged ≥60 years from an online panel. Respondents completed a survey that included a 2-armed experiment that randomized them to either a starting or a continuing scenario in which they were instructed that their doctor recommended they start or continue, respectively, a daily medication that prevents heart attacks and strokes. Pill disutility was calculated using a time-tradeoff method with time willing to trade obtained via alternating dichotomous choice contingent valuation design. Pill disutility was described within each scenario overall and by subgroups and then compared across scenarios using the Kruskal-Wallis test and multivariable fractional logistic regression.
RESULTS:
A total of 621 respondents with a mean age of 69 years were included in the final analysis. A majority were taking medications (n=84.5%, n=525) and had at least 1 chronic cardiometabolic disease (78.7%, n=489). Pill disutility associated with starting a new medication was 0.0662 (SD, 0.13), while pill disutility associated with continuing an existing medication was 0.0378 (SD, 0.10; P<0.001). Participants randomized to the starting scenario had higher odds of higher pill disutility versus participants randomized to the continuing scenario in both multivariable testing (odds ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.15–2.40]) and across subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS:
Pill disutility for a daily cardioprotective medication, when obtained from a sample of older adults utilizing rigorous ascertainment methods, is higher than previously reported, especially with regard to starting the medication. These represent the first estimates that can be used in cost-effectiveness modeling involving both prescribing and deprescribing.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Supplemental Material
Tables S1–S14
Figure S1
- Download
- 211.87 KB
References
1.
Thompson A, Guthrie B, Payne K. Do pills have no ills? Capturing the impact of direct treatment disutility. PharmacoEcon. 2016;34:333–336. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0357-9
2.
Hutchins R, Viera AJ, Sheridan SL, Pignone MP. Quantifying the utility of taking pills for cardiovascular prevention. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:155–163. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001240
3.
Hutchins R, Pignone MP, Sheridan SL, Viera AJ. Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006505. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006505
4.
Fontana M, Asaria P, Moraldo M, Finegold J, Hassanally K, Manisty CH, Francis DP. Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility. Circulation. 2014;129:2539–2546. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007595
5.
Wang MC, Shah NS, Carnethon MR, O’Brien MJ, Khan SS. Age at diagnosis of diabetes by race and ethnicity in the United States from 2011 to 2018. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:1537–1539. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4945
6.
Huang X, Lee K, Wang MC, Shah NS, Khan SS. Age at diagnosis of hypertension by race and ethnicity in the US from 2011 to 2020. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7:986–987. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.2345
7.
Olufade T, Zhou S, Anzalone D, Kern DM, Tunceli O, Cziraky MJ, Willey VJ. Initiation patterns of statins in the 2 years after release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol management guideline in a large US health plan. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e005205. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.005205
8.
Gu Q. Prescription Cholesterol-Lowering Medication Use in Adults Aged 40 and Over: United States, 2003-2012. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014.
9.
Rosenzweig C. What is prime panels? Breaking down CloudResearch’s panel management tool. Accessed 2024. https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/research/what-is-prime-panels/
10.
Peer E, Rothschild D, Gordon A, Evernden Z, Damer E. Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav Res Methods. 2022;54:1643–1662. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3
11.
Hauser DJ, Moss AJ, Rosenzweig C, Jaffe SN, Robinson J, Litman L. Evaluating CloudResearch’s Approved Group as a solution for problematic data quality on MTurk. Behav Res Methods. 2023;55:3953–3964. doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01999-x
12.
Chandler J, Rosenzweig C, Moss AJ, Robinson J, Litman L. Online panels in social science research: expanding sampling methods beyond mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2019;51:2022–2038. doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7
13.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O'Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, et al; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
14.
Hall MA, Zheng B, Dugan E, Camacho F, Kidd KE, Mishra A, Balkrishnan R. Measuring patients’ trust in their primary care providers. Med Care Res Rev. 2002;59:293–318. doi: 10.1177/1077558702059003004
15.
Hoerger M, Quirk SW, Weed NC. Development and validation of the delaying gratification inventory. Psychol Assess. 2011;23:725–738. doi: 10.1037/a0023286
16.
VA New England GRECC. What matters most questionnaire. Published 2021. Accessed December 3, 2024. https://www.va.gov/geriatrics/docs/What_Matters_Most_questionnaire.pdf
17.
Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones AP, Kerr GN. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ. 2001;23:191–213. doi: 10.1016/s0928-7655(00)00044-0
18.
Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:593–603. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90019-1
19.
Agley J, Xiao Y, Nolan R, Golzarri-Arroyo L. Quality control questions on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk): a randomized trial of impact on the USAUDIT, PHQ-9, and GAD-7. Behav Res Methods. 2022;54:885–897. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01665-8
20.
Thompson A, Youn JH, Guthrie B, Hainsworth R, Donnan P, Rogers G, Morales D, Payne K. Quantifying the impact of taking medicines for primary prevention: a time-trade off study to elicit direct treatment disutility in the UK. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e063800. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063800
21.
Social Security Administration. Actuarial life table. 2023. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
22.
Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecolog Econ. 1995;12:161–179. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(94)00044-v
23.
Boyle KJ, Bishop RC. Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. Amer J Agr Econ. 1988;70:20–28. doi: 10.2307/1241972
24.
Attema AE, Edelaar-Peeters Y, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur J Heal Econ. 2013;14:53–64. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x
25.
Pandya A, Sy S, Cho S, Weinstein MC, Gaziano TA. Cost-effectiveness of 10-year risk thresholds for initiation of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 2015;314:142–150. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6822
26.
Matza LS, Stewart KD, Gandra SR, Delio PR, Fenster BE, Davies EW, Jordan JB, Lothgren M, Feeny DH. Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0772-9
27.
Shrive FM, Manns BJ, Galbraith PD, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA; APPROACH Investigators. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. CMAJ. 2005;172:345–351. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1041062
28.
Xie J, Wu EQ, Zheng ZJ, Croft JB, Greenlund KJ, Mensah GA, Labarthe DR. Impact of stroke on health-related quality of life in the noninstitutionalized population in the United States. Stroke. 2006;37:2567–2572. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000240506.34616.10
29.
Khanna D, Ahmed M, Yontz D, Ginsburg SS, Park GS, Leonard A, Tsevat J. The disutility of chronic gout. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:815–822. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9355-0
30.
Stein EM, Yang M, Guerin A, Gao W, Galebach P, Xiang CQ, Bhattacharyya S, Bonifacio G, Joseph GJ. Assessing utility values for treatment-related health states of acute myeloid leukemia in the United States. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-1013-9
31.
Wittenberg E, Ritter GA, Prosser LA. Evidence of spillover of illness among household members: EQ-5D scores from a US sample. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:235–243. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12464434
32.
Reeve E, Wolff JL, Skehan M, Bayliss EA, Hilmer SN, Boyd CM. Assessment of attitudes toward deprescribing in older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1673–1680. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4720
33.
Pilla SJ, Meza KA, Schoenborn NL, Boyd CM, Maruthur NM, Chander G. A qualitative study of perspectives of older adults on deintensifying diabetes medications. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;38:1008–1015. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07828-3
34.
Boath EH, Blenkinsopp A. The rise and rise of proton pump inhibitor drugs: patients’ perspectives. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:1571–1579. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00094-4
35.
Post SG, Stuckey JC, Whitehouse PJ, Ollerton S, Durkin C, Robbins D, Fallcreek SJ. A focus group on cognition-enhancing medications in Alzheimer disease: disparities between professionals and consumers. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2001;15:80–88. doi: 10.1097/00002093-200104000-00007
36.
Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, Doyle JP, El-Kebbi IM, Gallina DL, Miller CD, Ziemer DC, Barnes CS. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:825–834. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-9-200111060-00012
37.
Wrzal PK, Mohseni AA, Fournier C, Goldenberg R, Hollahan D, Jin S, Pedersen SD, Vallis M, Bunko A, Myageri V, et al. A cross-sectional survey to assess reasons for therapeutic inertia in people with type 2 diabetes Mellitus and preferred strategies to overcome it from the perspectives of persons with diabetes and general/family practitioners: results from the MOTION stu. Can J Diabetes. 2022;46:337–345.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2021.11.005
38.
Bzowyckyj AS, Begert JE. Diabetes, therapeutic inertia, and patients’ medication experience. Diabetes Spectr. 2020;33:31–37. doi: 10.2337/ds19-0019
39.
Krousel-Wood M, Peacock E, Bradford WD, Mohundro B, Craig LS, O'Connell S, Bazzano L, Shi L, Ford M. Time preference for immediate gratification: associations with low medication adherence and uncontrolled blood pressure. Am J Hypertens. 2022;35:256–263. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpab175
40.
Sansbury B, Dasgupta A, Guthrie L, Ward M. Time perspective and medication adherence among individuals with hypertension or diabetes mellitus. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;95:104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.12.016
41.
Kai-Ineman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:363–391. doi: 10.2307/1914185
42.
Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, Schmid CH, Devasenapathy N, Hayward RA, Gagnier J, Borenstein M, van der Heijden GJMG, Dahabreh IJ, et al. Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2020;192:E901–E906. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.200077
43.
Marcum ZA, Driessen J, Thorpe CT, Gellad WF, Donohue JM. Effect of multiple pharmacy use on medication adherence and drug–drug interactions in older adults with Medicare part D. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:244–252. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12645
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2024 American Heart Association, Inc.
History
Received: 20 March 2024
Accepted: 27 August 2024
Published in print: November 2024
Published online: 19 November 2024
Keywords
Subjects
Authors
Disclosures
Dr Lauffenburger serves as an Associate Editor for Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. Disclosures provided by Dr. Lauffenburger in compliance with American Heart Association’s annual Journal Editor Disclosure Questionnaire are available at https://www.ahajournals.org/pb-assets/policies/COI_02_2024-1709907389253.pdf The other authors report no conflicts.
Sources of Funding
None.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginPurchase Options
Purchase this article to access the full text.
Submit a Response to This Article