A quantitative assessment of patient barriers to insulin

Patient preferences for anti-hyperglycaemic medication for type 2 diabetes mellitus in China: findings from a national survey

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the preferences regarding risks, benefits and other treatment attributes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China when selecting a second-line anti-hyperglycaemic medicine.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment with hypothetical anti-hyperglycaemic medication profiles was performed using a face-to-face survey administered to patients with T2DM. The medication profile was described using seven attributes: treatment efficacy, hypoglycaemia risk, cardiovascular benefits, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, weight change, mode of administration and out-of-pocket cost. Participants chose between medication profiles by comparing attributes. Data were analysed using a mixed logit model with marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) and maximum acceptable risk (MAR) calculated. The preference heterogeneity within the sample was explored using a latent class model (LCM).

RESULTS

A total of 3327 respondents from five major geographical regions completed the survey. Treatment efficacy, hypoglycaemia risk, cardiovascular benefits and GI adverse events were major concerns among the seven attributes measured. Weight change and mode of administration were of lesser concern. Regarding mWTP, respondents would pay ¥236.1 (US$36.6) for an anti-hyperglycaemic medication with an efficacy of 2.5% points reduction in HbA1c, while they were willing to accept a weight gain of 3 kg only if they received a compensation of ¥56.7 (US$8.8). Respondents were willing to accept a relatively large increase in hypoglycaemia risk (MAR=15.9%) to improve treatment efficacy from intermediate (1.0% points) to high (1.5% points). LCM identified the following four unobserved subgroups: trypanophobia, cardiovascular-benefits-focused, safety-focused and efficacy-focused and cost-sensitive.

CONCLUSION

Patients with T2DM prioritised free out-of-pocket costs, highest efficacy, no hypoglycaemia risk and cardiovascular benefits over weight change and mode of administration. There exists great preference heterogeneity among patients, which should be taken into account in healthcare decision-making processes.

Patient preferences for atopic dermatitis medications in the UK, France and Spain: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to quantify patient preferences for efficacy, safety and convenience features of atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Online discrete choice experiment survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults in the UK, France and Spain who had used AD treatments during the past 2 years.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Preferences for attributes were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Willingness to make trade-offs was expressed as the maximum acceptable decrease (MAD) in the probability of achieving clear/almost clear skin at week 16.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 404 patients (44.1±12.0 years; 65% women; 64% moderate/severe eczema). Most patients (68%) had no prior experience of using self-injectable treatments for AD or any other illness. Participants most valued increasing the chance of achieving a meaningful reduction in itch at week 16 from 20% to 50%, followed by reducing the risks of serious infections from 6% to 0% and of eye inflammation from 20% to 0%. Participants were willing to accept a decrease in the possibility of achieving clear/almost clear skin to obtain a treatment that can be paused (MAD=24.1%), requires occasional check-ups (MAD=16.1%) or no check-ups (MAD=20.9%) over frequent check-ups, is administered as a one time per day or two times per day oral pill versus a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks (MAD=16.6%), has a 2-day over 2-week onset of action (MAD=11.3%), and can be used for flare management (MAD=5.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with AD most valued treatment benefits and risks, they were willing to tolerate reduced efficacy to obtain a rapid onset, oral administration, less frequent monitoring and a treatment that can be paused. Understanding patients' preferences for AD therapies, including new targeted therapies, can aid shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and support health technology assessments.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

One in Seven Insulin-Treated Patients in Developing Countries Reported Poor Persistence with Insulin Therapy: Real World Evidence from the Cross-Sectional International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS)

INTRODUCTION

Although poor adherence to insulin is widely recognised, periodic discontinuation of insulin may cause more severe hyperglycaemia than poor adherence. We assessed persistence with insulin therapy in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in developing countries and the reasons for insulin discontinuation.

METHODS

The International Diabetes Management Practices Study collected real-world data from developing countries in seven waves between 2005 and 2017. In Wave 7 (2016-2017), we asked adult patients with T1D and insulin-treated T2D to report whether they had ever discontinued insulin, the estimated duration of discontinuation and underlying reasons.

RESULTS

Among 8303 patients recruited from 24 countries by 620 physicians, 4596 were insulin-treated (T1D: 2000; T2D: 2596). In patients with T1D, 14.0% (95% CI: 12.5-15.6) reported having self-discontinued insulin for a median duration of 1.0 month (IQR: 0.5, 3.5). The respective figures in patients with T2D were 13.7% (12.4-15.1) and 2.0 months (IQR: 1.0, 6.0). The main reasons for discontinuation were impact on social life (T1D: 41.0%; T2D: 30.5%), cost of medications and test strips (T1D: 34.4%; T2D: 24.5%), fear of hypoglycaemia (T1D: 26.7%; T2D: 28.0%) and lack of support (T1D: 26.4%; T2D: 25.9%). Other factors included age < 40 years, non-university education and short disease duration (T1D: ≤ 1 year; T2D: > 1-≤ 5 years). Patients with T1D who did not perform self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or self-adjust their insulin dosage, and patients with T1D or T2D without glucose meters were less likely to persist with insulin. Nearly 50% of patients who reported poor persistence had HbA1c > 75 mmol/mol (> 9%) and > 50% of physicians recommended diabetes education programmes to improve treatment persistence.

CONCLUSION

In developing countries, poor persistence with insulin is common among insulin-treated patients, supporting calls for urgent actions to ensure easy access to insulin, tools for SMBG and education.

Glycemic Control and Prevention of Diabetic Complications in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An Expert Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Trends on glycemic control and diabetes complications are known for high-income countries, but comprehensive data from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are lacking.

METHODS

This is an expert opinion based on two retrospective studies. Here we examine the recent subset analysis of relevant data from the IDMPS Wave 7 (International Diabetes Management-Practices Study, 2015-2016) and the GOAL study conducted in multiple LMICs.

RESULTS

Wave 7 sub-analysis was performed in 6113 people with type 2 diabetes from 24 LMIC. Poorly controlled diabetes (hemogloblin A1c [HbA1c] ≥ 7%) was found in 58.6, 73.0 and 78.3% of participants with diabetes duration of < 5, 5-12 and > 12 years, respectively (in association with a high prevalence of macro- and microvascular complications). Moreover, 37.7% of participants with diabetes duration of 5-12 years were treated only with oral antihyperglycemic drugs. The GOAL study investigated the efficacy of insulin in 2704 poorly controlled participants (mean HbA1c 9.7%; diabetes duration 10.1 ± 6.7 years; 10 LMIC). A significant 2% reduction in mean HbA1c levels was observed after 12 months of treatment. Only 7.2% of participants experienced a symptomatic episode of hypoglycemia (nocturnal or severe hypoglycemia events were infrequent).

CONCLUSION

The rate of well-controlled participants (HbA1c < 7.0%) in the Wave 7 sub-analysis was lower than that observed in the USA (NHANES survey) or in European countries (GUIDANCE study), and the incidence of microvascular complications was higher. The GOAL study showed that insulin treatment improves glycemic control and reduces this gap. The Expert Panel recommends intensifying diabetes treatment as soon as possible, as well as patients' education and other preventive measures, initiatives which require modest costs compared to hospitalization and treatment of diabetes complications.

Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes

Purpose

Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

Participants with T2D in the UK reported preferences and valued four health state vignettes in time trade-off utility interviews. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without administration requirements), (2) daily oral semaglutide (with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide injection, (4) weekly semaglutide injection.

Results

Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age = 58.7). Preferences between treatment processes varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral semaglutide, 0.878 for dulaglutide injection, and 0.859 for semaglutide injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p < 0.01), except the comparison between oral semaglutide and the dulaglutide injection (p = 0.49).

Conclusions

Results suggest that routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., oral versus injectable). Dose frequency and specific details of the treatment process administration had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-utility models comparing these treatments for T2D. Results also suggest that it may be helpful to consider patient preferences for treatment process when selecting medications for patients in clinical settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02808-2.

Persistent poor glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes in developing countries: 12 years of real-world evidence of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS)

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We evaluated the secular trend of glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes in developing countries, where data are limited.

METHODS

The International Diabetes Management Practices Study provides real-world evidence of patient profiles and diabetes care practices in developing countries in seven cross-sectional waves (2005-2017). At each wave, each physician collected data from ten consecutive participants with type 2 diabetes during a 2 week period. The primary objective of this analysis was to evaluate trends of glycaemic control over time.

RESULTS

A total of 66,088 individuals with type 2 diabetes were recruited by 6099 physicians from 49 countries. The proportion of participants with HbA_1c <53 mmol/mol (<7%) decreased from 36% in wave 1 (2005) to 30.1% in wave 7 (2017) (p < 0.0001). Compared with wave 1, the adjusted ORs of attaining HbA_1c ≤64 mmol/mol (≤8%) decreased significantly in waves 2, 5, 6 and 7 (p < 0.05). Over 80% of participants received oral glucose-lowering drugs, with declining use of sulfonylureas. Insulin use increased from 32.8% (wave 1) to 41.2% (wave 7) (p < 0.0001). The corresponding time to insulin initiation (mean ± SD) changed from 8.4 ± 6.9 in wave 1 to 8.3 ± 6.6 years in wave 7, while daily insulin dosage ranged from 0.39 ± 0.21 U/kg (wave 1) to 0.33 ± 0.19 U/kg (wave 7) for basal regimen and 0.70 ± 0.34 U/kg (wave 1) to 0.77 ± 0.33 (wave 7) U/kg for basal-bolus regimen. An increasing proportion of participants had ≥2 HbA_1c measurements within 12 months of enrolment (from 61.8% to 92.9%), and the proportion of participants receiving diabetes education (mainly delivered by physicians) also increased from 59.0% to 78.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

In developing countries, glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes remained suboptimal over a 12 year period, indicating a need for system changes and better organisation of care to improve self-management and attainment of treatment goals.

Factors Affecting Insulin Compliance in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in South Iran, 2017: We Are Faced with Insulin Phobia

BACKGROUND

Many patients with type 2 diabetes are uncontrolled on maximum oral treatment. The early introduction of insulin can lower diabetes-related complications. This study aimed to evaluate type 2 diabetes patients' demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and attitude toward insulin therapy initiation.

METHODS

In the present cross-sectional study, 457 patients were selected from 12 diabetes clinics in the southern Iranian city of Shiraz in 2017. Adult patients (>30 y) with type 2 diabetes indicated to use insulin for the first time (insulin-naive) were asked to complete a researcher-designed questionnaire. The data were analyzed using SPSS 19. The relationships between insulin and the tendency to use insulin, demographic characteristics, and clinical data were evaluated using the χ² or t test and logistic regression. The significance level was considered at 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 55.16±8.76 years and 67.4% were female. Despite physician recommendations, 60.2% of the patients were disinclined to use insulin. Those unwilling to initiate insulin therapy had more misconceptions. In the multivariate analysis, the chances of insulin noncompliance were increased by 4.63-fold among the patients without supplementary insurance (P<0.001), by 2.38-fold among those with a nondiabetic diet (P=0.002), and by 6.75-fold among the illiterate ones (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the factors affecting insulin noncompliance in our insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes included insurance coverage, illiteracy, and nondiabetic regimens as well as misconceptions about and irrational fear of insulin injection. Overall, our results indicate the need for further education and financial support for patients and health staff.

Conducting a Discrete-Choice Experiment Study Following Recommendations for Good Research Practices: An Application for Eliciting Patient Preferences for Diabetes Treatments

OBJECTIVES

To consolidate and illustrate good research practices in health care to the application and reporting of a study measuring patient preferences for type 2 diabetes mellitus medications, given recent methodological advances in stated-preference methods.

METHODS

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research good research practices and other recommendations were used to conduct a discrete-choice experiment. Members of a US online panel with type 2 diabetes mellitus completed a Web-enabled, self-administered survey that elicited choices between treatment pairs with six attributes at three possible levels each. A D-efficient experimental design blocked 48 choice tasks into three 16-task surveys. Preference estimates were obtained using mixed logit estimation and were used to calculate choice probabilities.

RESULTS

A total of 552 participants (51% males) completed the survey. Avoiding 90 minutes of nausea was valued the highest (mean -10.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.53 to -9.47). Participants wanted to avoid low blood glucose during the day and/or night (mean -3.87; 95% CI -4.32 to -3.42) or one pill and one injection per day (mean -7.04; 95% CI -7.63 to -6.45). Participants preferred stable blood glucose 6 d/wk (mean 4.63; 95% CI 4.15 to 5.12) and a 1% decrease in glycated hemoglobin (mean 5.74; 95% CI 5.22 to 6.25). If cost increased by $1, the probability that a treatment profile would be chosen decreased by 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are consistent with the idea that people have strong preferences for immediate consequences of medication. Despite efforts to produce recommendations, ambiguity surrounding good practices remains and various judgments need to be made when conducting stated-preference studies. To ensure transparency, these judgments should be described and justified.

Be Careful What You Ask For: Effects of Benefit Descriptions on Diabetes Patients' Benefit-Risk Tradeoff Preferences

BACKGROUND

As more studies report on patient preferences for diabetes treatment, identifying diabetes outcomes other than glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) to describe effectiveness is warranted to understand patient-relevant, benefit-risk tradeoffs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate how preferences differ when effectiveness (glycemic control) is presented as long-term sequela (LTS) risk mitigation rather than an asymptomatic technical marker (HbA_1c).

METHODS

People with type 2 diabetes and using insulin (n = 3160) were randomly assigned to four self-administered, discrete-choice experiments that differed by their presentation of effectiveness. Epidemiologic reviews were conducted to ensure a close approximation of LTS risk relative to HbA_1c levels. The relative importance of treatment benefit-risk characteristics and maximum acceptable risk tradeoffs was estimated using an error-component logit model. Log-likelihood ratio tests were used to compare parameter vectors.

RESULTS

In total, 1031 people responded to the survey. Significantly more severe hypoglycemic events were accepted for a health improvement in terms of LTS mitigation versus HbA_1c improvement (0.7 events per year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-1.0 vs. 0.2 events per year 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.5) and avoidance of treatment-related heart attack risk (1.4 severe hypoglycemic events per year; 95% CI: 0.8-1.9 vs. 1 event per year; 95% CI: 0.6-1.3). This finding is supported by a log-likelihood test that rejected at the 0.05 level that respondent preference structures are similar across the different experimental arms of the discrete-choice experiment.

CONCLUSION

We found evidence that benefit descriptions influence elicited preferences for the benefit-risk characteristics of injectable diabetes treatment. These findings argue for using carefully defined effectiveness measures to accurately take account of the patient perspective in benefit-risk assessments.

Education and patient preferences for treating type 2 diabetes: a stratified discrete-choice experiment

PURPOSE

Diabetes is a chronic condition that is more prevalent among people with lower educational attainment. This study assessed the treatment preferences of patients with type 2 diabetes by educational attainment.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from a national online panel in the US. Treatment preferences were assessed using a discrete-choice experiment. Participants completed 16 choice tasks in which they compared pairs of treatment profiles composed of six attributes: A1c decrease, stable blood glucose, low blood glucose, nausea, treatment burden, and out-of-pocket cost. Choice models and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were estimated using a conditional logit model and were stratified by educational status.

RESULTS

A total of 231 participants with a high school diploma or less education, 156 participants with some college education, and 165 participants with a college degree or more completed the survey. Participants with a college degree or more education were willing to pay more for A1c decreases ($58.84, standard error [SE]: 10.6) than participants who had completed some college ($28.47, SE: 5.53) or high school or less ($17.56, SE: 3.55) (p≤0.01). People with a college education were willing to pay more than people with high school or less to avoid nausea, low blood glucose events during the day/night, or two pills per day.

CONCLUSION

WTP for aspects of diabetes medication differed for people with a college education or more and a high school education or less. Advanced statistical methods might overcome limitations of stratification and advance understanding of preference heterogeneity for use in patient-centered benefit-risk assessments and personalized care approaches.

Prevalence of unwillingness to use insulin therapy and its associated attitudes amongst patients with Type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia

AIMS

This study aimed at determining the prevalence of unwillingness to use insulin and its associated attitudes amongst participants with Type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia. A further aim was to investigate whether demographic characteristics such as age, gender, educational level and duration of diabetes are associated with unwillingness to use insulin among these participants.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study conducted among participants with Type 2 diabetes using a self-administered questionnaire. The study sample consisted of 408 insulin-naive participants with Type 2 diabetes who were recruited between May and August 2014 from the primary care outpatient clinics at King Khalid University Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

Unwillingness to commence using insulin was common in about one third (34.6%) of Saudi participants with Type 2 diabetes. Negative attitudes most frequently raised by participants towards commencing insulin therapy were: keeping insulin as a last resort (57.1%), restriction of lifestyle (48.8%), problematic hypoglycemia (45.1%), perception of failure to care for diabetes previously (44.6%), and weight gain worries (40.7%). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, after adjustment for a participant's age, gender, educational level, location and duration of diabetes, participants with tertiary education were 48% less likely to be willing to initiate insulin therapy as compared to those who had only a primary education (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.30-0.91, P=0.023). However, there were no significant associations between unwillingness to commence insulin and other study variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants have several negative attitudes concerning initiating insulin therapy. Exploring the reasons for participant reluctance to commence insulin can help address his or her specific concerns and beliefs, and promote the future uptake of insulin.

How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Many new drugs do not offer clinical benefits over existing treatments but provide potentially more convenient modes of administration. These include how frequently a treatment is given, how it is delivered, who gives the treatment, and whether there are any associated local adverse reactions. We reviewed studies in rheumatology that ask patients and society the value they assign to these aspects of treatment in comparison to the benefits and side effects and costs. We find that mode of administration is generally valued by both patients and society, but the extent depends on the context of the disease and the study participants. Respondents with a more severe disease seem to assign less value to mode and frequency of administration, and prioritize improvement in pain and function. However, patients with chronic, but less severe, disease seem to place greater value on mode of administration. Furthermore, respondents with experience of the treatments perceived to be more inconvenient assigned lower value to more convenient treatments. Unfortunately, we found few examples of studies that reported values in a format that could easily be incorporated into resource allocation decisions by payers.

Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

The emergence of various modes of administration for cancer treatment, including oral administration, brings into focus the importance of patient preference for administration. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral and intravenous (IV) treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in OvidSP to identify research in which the preferences of cancer patients for oral or IV treatment have been evaluated. Data were analyzed in two stages: 1) those articles that directly compared preference between modes of administration were tallied to determine explicit preference for oral or IV treatment; and 2) all attributes associated with patient preference were documented.

RESULTS

Of the 48 abstracts identified as part of the initial OvidSP search, eight articles were selected for full-text review. One article was removed following full-text review, and seven additional articles were identified through a gray literature search, yielding a total of 14 articles for evaluation. In Stage 1, 13 of the 14 articles compared preference, of which eleven articles (84.6%) reported that patients preferred oral treatment over IV, while two (15.4%) stated that cancer patients preferred IV treatment over oral. In Stage 2, the most frequently reported attributes contributing to preference included convenience, ability to receive treatment at home, treatment schedule, and side effects.

DISCUSSION

Evidence suggests that oncology patients prefer oral treatment to IV. Rationale for preference was due to a number of factors, including convenience, perception of efficacy, and past experience. Further evaluation should be conducted, given the limited data on patient preference in oncology.

Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach

BACKGROUND

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used in second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are administered parenterally. However, so-called targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) - developed more recently - offer alternative (ie, oral) administration forms in second-line treatment. Since bDMARDs and tsDMARDs can be regarded as equal in terms of efficacy, the present study examines whether such characteristics as route of administration drive RA patients' treatment choice. This may ultimately suggest superiority of some second-line DMARDs over equally effective options, at least according to RA-patient preferences.

OBJECTIVE

The current study assessed the importance of oral administration among other treatment characteristics differing between available second-line DMARDs for RA patients' preferences using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The DCE involved scenarios of three hypothetical treatment options in a d-efficient design with varying levels of key attributes (route and frequency of administration, time till onset of drug effect, combination therapy, possible side effects), as defined by focus groups. Further patient characteristics were recorded by an accompanying questionnaire. In the DCE, patients were asked to choose best and worst options (best-worst scaling). Results were analyzed by count analysis and adjusted regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,588 subjects completed the DCE and were eligible for final analyses. Across all characteristics included in the DCE, "oral administration" was most desired and "intravenous infusion" was most strongly rejected. This was followed by "no combination with methotrexate" being strongly preferred and "intake every 1-2 weeks" being strongly rejected. On average, levels of route of administration showed strongest influences on patients' decisions in post hoc bootstrapping analysis.

CONCLUSION

According to the results, an oral DMARD that does not have to be combined with methotrexate and is not administered (only) every 1-2 weeks appears a highly favorable treatment option for patients with RA. DMARDs meeting these preferences may increase compliance and adherence in RA treatment.

Preference for pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes

PURPOSE

Pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes, such as dose frequency and route of administration, can have an impact on quality of life, treatment adherence, and disease outcomes. The aim of this literature review was to examine studies on preferences for pharmaceutical treatment process attributes, focusing on research in diabetes, oncology, osteoporosis, and autoimmune disorders.

METHODS

The literature search focused on identifying studies reporting preferences for attributes of the pharmaceutical treatment process. Studies were required to use formal quantitative preference assessment methods, such as utility valuation, conjoint analysis, or contingent valuation. Searches were conducted using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Economic Evaluation Database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (January 1993-October 2013).

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies met inclusion criteria: 19 diabetes, nine oncology, five osteoporosis, and nine autoimmune. Across these conditions, treatments associated with shorter treatment duration, less frequent administration, greater flexibility, and less invasive routes of administration were preferred over more burdensome or complex treatments. While efficacy and safety often had greater relative importance than treatment process, treatment process also had a quantifiable impact on preference. In some instances, particularly in diabetes and autoimmune disorders, treatment process attributes had greater relative importance than some or all efficacy and safety attributes. Some studies suggested that relative importance of treatment process depends on disease (eg, acute vs chronic) and patient (eg, injection experience) characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Despite heterogeneity in study methods and design, some general patterns of preference clearly emerged. Overall, the results of this review suggest that treatment process has a quantifiable impact on preference and willingness to pay for treatment, even in many situations where safety and efficacy were the primary concerns. Patient preferences for treatment process attributes can inform drug development decisions to better meet the needs of patients and deliver improved outcomes.

Short-term intensive insulin therapy at diagnosis in type 2 diabetes: plan for filling the gaps

Short-term intensive insulin therapy is unique amongst therapies for type 2 diabetes because it offers the potential to preserve and improve beta-cell function without additional pharmacological treatment. On the basis of clinical experience and the promising results of a series of studies in newly diagnosed patients, mostly in Asian populations, an expert workshop was convened to assess the available evidence and the potential application of short-term intensive insulin therapy should it be advocated for inclusion in clinical practice. Participants included primary care physicians and endocrinologists. We endorse the concept of short-term intensive insulin therapy as an option for some patients with type 2 diabetes at the time of diagnosis and have identified the following six areas where additional knowledge could help clarify optimal use in clinical practice: (1) generalizability to primary care, (2) target population and biomarkers, (3) follow-up treatment, (4) education of patients and providers, (5) relevance of ethnicity, and (6) health economics.

Barriers to initiating insulin in type 2 diabetes patients: development of a new patient education tool to address myths, misconceptions and clinical realities

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify patient beliefs as well as clinical realities about insulin that may be barriers to type 2 diabetes patients initiating insulin treatment when recommended by their physician. This information was then used to develop a clinically relevant, cross-culturally valid patient education tool with the goal of providing unbiased, medically informative statements addressing these barriers.

Methods

Thirteen focus groups were conducted in five countries (Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK, and USA) to collect qualitative data on attitudes about insulin therapy from type 2 diabetes patients aged 18 or older whose physician had recommended initiating insulin treatment in the past 6 months (n = 87). Additionally, a panel of four clinical experts was interviewed to ascertain obstacles they experience in initiating insulin with their patients.

Results

On the basis of the interview data, the ten questions that asked about the most important barriers were generated. The clinical expert panel then generated clinically accurate and unbiased responses addressing these concerns, and the educational tool “Questions about Starting Insulin: Information on the Myths, Misconceptions and Clinical Realities about Insulin” was drafted. The draft tool was pilot tested in a group of patients and finalized.

Conclusions

Patient misconceptions, as well as some clinical realities, about insulin treatment and diabetes can influence the decision to initiate insulin treatment and ultimately impact disease management. The educational tool developed through this study was designed to help patients who are deciding whether or not to initiate insulin therapy as recommended by their physician, and facilitate patient–health-care provider interactions.

The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research

BACKGROUND

The importance of understanding the perspective of patients towards their own care is increasingly recognized, both in clinical practice and in pharmaceutical drug development. Stated preference methods to assess the preference of patients towards different aspects of diabetes treatment have now been applied for over a decade.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to examine how stated preference methods are applied in diabetes care, and to evaluate the value of this information in developing the patient perspective in clinical and policy decisions.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The information sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, Current Contents, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit.

RESULTS

Three contingent valuation studies and 11 discrete choice experiments were retrieved. The majority of studies were conducted from 2009 onwards, but some date back to 1998. The reasons provided for applying the stated preference methods were to help differentiate between products, or to enable inclusion of the patient's perspective in treatment decisions. The main aspects of treatment examined were related to glucose control, adverse events, and drug administration. The majority of patients preferred glucose control over avoiding minor hypoglycemic events. Patient willingness to pay was above $US100/month for glucose control, avoiding immediate health hazards such as nausea, and oral or inhaled drug administration. Preference towards drug administration was highly associated with previous experience with injectable diabetes medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of a drug to lower glucose levels plays a decisive role in the choice between alternative treatments. Future research should strive to develop questionnaire designs relevant for the decision context of the study. That is, if the aim is to foster shared decision making, in clinical practice or drug development, this should guide the study design. Furthermore, concise reporting of all study dimensions-from the qualitative prework to the analysis stage-is warranted.

Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

As more studies report on patient preferences, techniques are needed to identify, assess and, eventually, synthesize results from a diverse set of methodologies. Data on patient preferences are valuable to decision makers in a variety of ways. Preferences for outcomes can be used to inform decision and cost-effectiveness models, while preferences for treatments can inform patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and patient-centered care.

OBJECTIVES

This project sought to identify and assess the literature reporting on the treatment preferences of adult patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition to cataloging the preference elicitation methods used, we developed and assessed a novel quality assessment checklist for preference-based studies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EconLit databases were searched to identify studies examining patient preferences for medications for type 2 diabetes studies published since inception of each database.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

The review protocol specified inclusion of studies reporting diabetes-treatment preferences among adults with type 2 diabetes, using a range of preference measurement methods. Studies were excluded if participants were not patients with type 2 diabetes and if treatments were not pharmacological therapies targeting glycemic control, or if no primary preference information was collected. Two investigators independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Data on study country, year, number of respondents, preference elicitation method, number of attributes, subgroup analyses, and funding source were abstracted into standardized tables. A novel checklist (PREFS) was used to assess the data quality and validity across different types of preference studies by assessing the following: purpose of the study; respondent sampling; explanation of preference assessment methods; findings reported for total sample; and significance testing. Each item was scored, and an aggregate score was then calculated (ranging from 0 to 5).

RESULTS

Of the 2,100 unique citations, 61 met the inclusion criteria. The studies used conjoint analysis (n = 10), time trade-off (n = 6), standard gamble (n = 2), contingent valuation (n = 1), other stated preference methods (n = 39), and revealed preferences (n = 5). Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 14,033, with an average of 562 respondents, and two-thirds included a subgroup analysis. Most studies were conducted in one country, predominantly the USA (n = 27), UK (n = 14), Canada (n = 10), and Germany (n = 7), while 14 were conducted in multiple (2-18) countries across two or more countries. There was an increase in the annual rate of studies published over time from the time of the first publication in 1985 (p = < 0.01). Most (n = 52) studies were funded by pharmaceutical or device companies, with government, academic, association, and hospital sources also funding studies. One study met all five of the PREFS criteria and 12 met four; yet four studies met none of the criteria. The average was 27.

LIMITATIONS

Currently, preferences reviews are limited by the mixed quality in the reporting of studies, the publication bias inherent in the literature, a lack of guidelines to conduct various methods, and the difficulty of synthesizing results from different studies. Our study is also limited by its focus on English language articles.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This study provides the first systematic evaluation of the methods used in the broad existing body of research into patient preferences for type 2 diabetes medications and can serve as a primary source of information for decision makers. Future work is necessary to assess the utility of the results of reviews of preference information and to develop best-practice guidelines for the reporting of, and methods of conducting, preference studies and systematic reviews of such studies.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42012002285).

Preferences for medication attributes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK

AIM

To examine preferences for oral medication attributes among participants with early and advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the UK using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

METHODS

A web-based DCE was administered where participants indicated which medication they preferred from two different hypothetical oral anti-diabetic (OAD) medication profiles, each composed of differing levels of seven attributes (efficacy, hypoglycaemic events, weight change, gastrointestinal/nausea side effects, urinary tract infection and genital infection, blood pressure and cardiovascular risk) for 20 sets of pair-wise comparisons. A random effects multinomial logit regression model was used to estimate the preference weight (PW) for each of the attribute levels, and the relative importance (RI) of each attribute was calculated. Analyses were conducted for the overall sample and for medication and gender subgroups.

RESULTS

The final sample included 100 participants with a mean age of 62.9 (SD 11.1) years and comparable numbers of participants of each gender (51% male, 49% female). The majority of the participants were White-British (92%). The total PW and corresponding RI were highest for four of the seven attributes: hypoglycaemic events (PW = 1.98; RI = 24.7%), weight change (PW = 1.65; RI = 20.6%), gastrointestinal/nausea side effects (PW = 1.49; RI = 18.6%) and efficacy (PW = 1.44; RI = 18.0%). The RI values differed for some attributes across gender and number of current T2DM medication subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that hypoglycaemia, weight change, gastrointestinal side effects and efficacy are of primary importance to patients in their OAD preferences in T2DM. These four attributes comprised over 80% of the RI.

Quality of life and patient-perceived difficulties in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Clinical evidence points to patient-perceived difficulties and compliance problems in implementing early insulin therapy. Therefore, individual treatment aims are necessary to optimize diabetes therapy, as currently acknowledged by the new ADA/EASD guidelines. Better characterization of patient-perceived difficulties in the implementation of early insulin treatment may contribute to improved compliance and optimal tailoring of treatment regimens for the individual patient.

OBJECTIVES

To assess differences in quality of life (QoL) and patient-perceived difficulties in health care with every addition of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) and insulin therapy.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted on a cross-sectional sample of 714 diabetic patients treated with OHAs or with insulin once or twice daily. Differences in diabetes-specific QoL, overall QoL, and perception of difficulties associated with specific diabetes treatment attributes were evaluated using trend analysis and comparisons between groups. The contribution of each diabetes treatment attribute to QoL measures and glycemic control was also assessed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in QoL measures among patients treated exclusively with OHAs when these patients were assessed by the number of oral agents, irrespective of the degree of glycemic control. Better controlled patients treated with 2 OHAs, compared with poorly controlled patients treated with a single OHA, had a lower perception of difficulties associated with diabetes treatment attributes. Poorly controlled patients treated with 2 OHAs and better controlled patients treated with 3 OHAs had similar QoL and perceived difficulties with care. However, the insulin-based alternative was consistently associated with a significantly higher perception of pain and lower overall QoL when compared with the oral regimens. Multivariate models accounted for 52% and 32% of the variance in QoL measures.

CONCLUSIONS

From the patients' perspective, oral therapy is the preferred strategy for attaining the treatment goals since the addition of OHAs was not associated with lower QoL or patient-perceived difficulties with care. If early insulin treatment is considered, physicians should address specific diabetes treatment characteristics, mainly the issue of pain, to promote improved QoL and disease control.