Patient Preferences for Pharmaceutical and Device-Based Treatments for Uncontrolled Hypertension: Discrete Choice Experiment. Issue 1 (9th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kandzari, David E.; Weber, Michael A.; Poulos, Christine; Coulter, Joshua; Cohen, Sidney A.; DeBruin, Vanessa; Jones, Denise; Pathak, Atul
• Is Part Of: Circulation. Volume 16:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: e008997
• Publication Date: 2022-12-09
• Subjects: ablation techniques -- antihypertensive agents -- autonomous denervation -- hypertension -- patient preference -- renal artery -- sympathetic nervous system; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Research -- Periodicals; Outcome assessment (Medical care) -- Periodicals; Evidence-based medicine -- Periodicals; 616.1007
• DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.008997
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1941-7713

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Discrete choice experiment is a survey method used to understand how individuals make decisions and to quantify the relative importance of features. Using discrete choice experiment methods, we quantified patient benefit–risk preferences for hypertension treatments, including pharmaceutical and interventional treatments, like renal denervation. Methods: Respondents from the United States with physician-confirmed uncontrolled hypertension selected between treatments involving a procedure or pills, using a structured survey. Treatment features included interventional, noninterventional, or no hypertension treatment; number of daily blood pressure (BP) pills; expected reduction in office systolic BP; duration of effect; and risks of drug side effects, access site pain, or vascular injury. The results of a random–parameters logit model were used to estimate the importance of each treatment attribute. Results: Among 400 patients completing the survey between 2020 and 2021, demographics included: 52% women, mean age 59.2±13.0 years, systolic BP 155.1±12.3 mm Hg, and 1.8±0.9 prescribed antihypertensive medications. Reduction in office systolic BP was the most important treatment attribute. The remaining attributes, in decreasing order, were duration of effect, whether treatment was interventional, number of daily pills, risk of vascular injury, and risk of drug side effects. Risk of access site pain did not influence choice. In general, respondents preferred noninterventional over interventional treatments, yet only a 2.3 mm Hg reduction in office systolic BP was required to offset this preference. Small reductions in office systolic BP would offset risks of vascular injury or drug side effects. At least a 20% risk of vascular injury or drug side effects would be tolerated in exchange for improved BP. Conclusions: Reduction in systolic BP was identified as the most important driver of patient treatment preference, while treatment-related risks had less influence. The results indicate that respondents would accept interventional treatments in exchange for modest reductions in systolic BP compared with those observed in renal denervation trials.