Cited by 4Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthEconomic and Environmental ValuationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Quantifying patient preferences about features of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies: a discrete choice experiment in the United States

Open access
Reed, Shelby D., Sutphin, Jessie, Gonzalez, Juan Marcos, Wallace, Matthew J., Stephenson, Judith J., Electricwala, Batul, Bosworth, Hayden B., Pagidipati, Neha·2025·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing number of nonstatin lipid–lowering treatments (NS-LLTs), data are lacking on how patients value their various features and outcomes. Study objectives were to quantify patients’ preferences across levels of efficacy, treatment regimens, side effects, and out-of-pocket costs of NS-LLTs and compare approaches with framing treatment efficacy. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to US adults aged ≥40 years with medical claims indicating statin use and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Each participant was administered 12 sets of experimentally designed pairs of add-on NS-LLT profiles that varied in efficacy, administration regimen, injection-site reaction, joint pain, out-of-pocket cost, and a no-additional treatment option. Random-parameter logit models were used to estimate preference weights, and tradeoffs across attributes were reported as willingness-to-pay estimates. RESULTS: A total of 1193 participants completed the survey (36% female; 90% White; mean age, 68.2±9.7 years). Across treatment features assessed, out-of-pocket cost ranging from $0 to $200 per month was the most important factor. All else being equal, a daily oral dosing regimen was the most preferred regimen. Among injectable regimens, participants preferred dosing every 6 months versus every 2 weeks ( P <0.001) or every month ( P <0.001). Efficacy presented as 25% to 60% reductions in LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol) levels was valued greater than equivalent reductions in 5-year cardiovascular risks. Among those reporting annual household incomes <$150 000 (93.5%), the average maximum willingness to pay for an add-on NS-LLT as a daily, oral medication without side effects ranged from $131 to $175 per month with efficacy framed as a 25% reduction in LDL-C levels versus $89 to $124 with efficacy framed as corresponding reductions in 5-year cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Among treatment features assessed, out-of-pocket costs were the primary factor driving choices. Those opting for an add-on NS-LLT were willing to trade off additional efficacy for less frequent injections or a daily oral medication.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circoutcomes.124.011804

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent discrete choice experiment found that patients expressed a strong preference for daily oral non-statin LLT, with a willingness-to-pay of $131 to $175 per month for an oral option that achieved an approximate 25% reduction in LDL-C levels.

    “A recent discrete choice experiment found that patients expressed a strong preference for daily oral non-statin LLT, with a willingness-to-pay of $131 to $175 per month for an oral option that achieved an approximate 25% reduction in LDL-C levels [46].”

    From Systematic literature review on the real-world effectiveness and safety of bempedoic acid (2026) · cites this paper as [46]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reed, S. D., Sutphin, J., Gonzalez, J. M., Wallace, M. J., Stephenson, J. J., Electricwala, B., Bosworth, H. B., & Pagidipati, N.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke Clinical Research Institute (S.D.R., J.S., J.M.G., M.J.W., H.B.B., N.P.), Duke University, Durham, NC.
  • Carelon Research (United States) (US)
  • Novartis (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Reed, Shelby D.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2025-08
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
e011804-e011804
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W4412192379
Cited by
4
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
non-statin lipid-lowering therapy, patient preferences, willingness to pay, out-of-pocket costs, dosing regimen, injectable drugs, LDL cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular risk reduction, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, joint pain, injection site reactions
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Hypolipidemic Agents, Cardiovascular Diseases, Choice Behavior, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Expenditures, Female, Humans, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Biomarkers, Drug Costs, Treatment Outcome, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Health Care Surveys, Dyslipidemias, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review