Patient preferences in Italy: health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes

Disutilities of treatment-related attributes for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the literature on eliciting disutilities associated with treatment-related attributes in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EconLit and CINAHL databases from inception to December, 2024. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the NICE and ROBINS-I checklist.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 59 to 4060 participants were included and most studies (n=6) were conducted in the UK. The perspective of preference included T2DM patients (n=7) and the general public (n=3), with one study included both. Elicitation approaches used were time trade-off (n=5) and standard gamble (n=4). Eight treatment-related attributes were identified, including weight change (n=5), dosing frequency (n=4), gastrointestinal side effects (n=2), flexible dosing (n=2), administration requirement (i.e., reconstitution, waiting, and needle handling) (n=2), injection site reaction (n=1), fear of hypoglycemia (n=1), and HbA1c levels (n=1). For the attribute of weight change, the (dis)utility value ranged from -0.106 to 0.047. Respondents showed a preference for weekly over daily administration (range: 0.023 to 0.095), once-daily over multiple-daily (range: 0.015 to 0.123). The (dis)utility values for the rest of six attributes ranged from -0.04 to 0.034.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence synthesize of published disutilities related to T2DM treatment-related attributes which have a nonnegligible effect. Weight change and dosing frequency were the most reported with the largest impact. Given the considerable heterogeneity in current studies, care should be taken in selecting appropriate estimates between different elicitation methods, populations and countries.

Utilities Associated with the Treatment of Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD): A Time Trade-off (TTO) Study in the UK and Canada

Purpose

Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) causes decreased growth rate in children, resulting in short stature in childhood and adulthood. Daily subcutaneous injections with growth hormone (GH) have been standard treatment. Newer weekly GH formulations now exist. This study estimates utilities associated with GHD treatment for both people with the disease and caregivers by employing time trade-off (TTO) methodology.

Methods

Three online surveys were conducted amongst the general population in the UK and Canada. Based on a pilot, data collection was conducted in two surveys only (Survey A and Survey B). In Survey A, adults aged ≥18 years evaluated health states as if they were receiving injections themselves. In Survey B, adults with a child <15 years evaluated health states as if they were administering injections to a child. The surveys assessed device complexity, injection frequency, injection pain, needle visibility and storage possibilities.

Results

2026 and 2028 respondents completed Survey A and Survey B, respectively. Of these, 1782 respondents and 1678 respondents were valid for inclusion. Avoiding weekly injection pain was associated with a significant utility gain of 0.030 (95% CI 0.026-0.035, p<0.001) in Survey A and 0.044 (95% CI 0.038-0.051, p<0.001) in Survey B. Additionally, less complex injection devices and lower injection frequencies had a significant impact in both Survey A (0.020, 95% CI 0.016-0.025, p<0.001; 0.009, 95% CI 0.005-0.014, p<0.001) and Survey B (0.008, 95% CI 0.002-0.014, p=0.006; 0.009, 95% CI 0.003-0.014, p=0.003).

Conclusion

Several aspects are associated with a significant impact on utilities for people with GHD and potential caregivers. Treatment options without injection pain, a time-consuming and complex injection process and daily injections are expected to result in higher health-related quality of life. These results may inform future economic evaluations and treatment choices.

Physician Perceptions of Dose Escalation for Type 2 Diabetes Medications in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Medications used to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) often require dose escalation to optimize effectiveness. Physician and patient perceptions of treatment characteristics of T2D medications have previously been examined, but little is known about perceptions of escalation to the optimal dose for each patient. This study examined physicians' perceptions of dose escalation for medications used to treat T2D.

METHODS

Data on dose escalation and other factors influencing decision-making for treatment of T2D were collected via an online survey of endocrinologists and primary care physicians in the USA.

RESULTS

The sample included 501 physicians (348 primary care physicians and 153 endocrinologists). Dose escalation was not frequently considered by physicians as a primary factor keeping patients' from reaching treatment goals (mentioned as a factor by only 7.6% of the sample) or a barrier to prescribing T2D medication (16.2%). Factors more likely to keep patients from reaching treatment goals included an unhealthy diet (86.6%) and medication adherence (77.4%). The most common reasons that physicians reported for escalating dose levels were the need for better glycemic control (reported by 89.8% of the sample), ability to decrease the total number of medications by increasing the dose of one medication (39.9%), and the need for the patient to lose weight (39.3%). Data reported by primary care physicians and endocrinologists followed similar patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although common with T2D treatments, escalating the dose of T2D medication was not perceived by physicians to be a significant barrier to attaining treatment goals or prescribing medication. Multiple factors contribute to the decision to escalate the dose of T2D medication.

Health state utilities associated with weight loss: preferences of people with type 2 diabetes and obesity in Japan

AIMS

Health state utilities associated with weight change are needed for cost-utility analyses (CUAs) examining the value of treatments for type 2 diabetes and obesity. Previous studies have estimated the utility benefits associated with various amounts of weight reduction in the US and Europe, but preferences for weight change in Asian cultures may differ from these published values. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with reductions in body weight based on preferences of individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity in Japan.

METHODS

Health state vignettes represented type 2 diabetes with respondents' own current weight and weight reductions of 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5%, 15%, and 20%. Utilities were elicited in time trade-off interviews with a sample of respondents in Japan with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 (the cutoff for obesity in Japan).

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted with data from 138 respondents (84.8% male; mean age = 58.0 years; mean BMI = 29.4 kg/m2) from all eight regions of Japan. Utility gains gradually increased with rising percentage of weight reductions ranging from 2.5% to 15%. Weight reductions of 2.5% to 15% resulted in utility increases of 0.013 to 0.048. The health state representing a 20% weight reduction yielded a wide range of preferences (mean utility increase of 0.044). Equations are recommended for estimating utility change based on any percentage of weight reduction (up to 20%) in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted in a sample with limited representation of patients with BMI >35 kg/m2 (n = 13) and relatively few women (n = 21).

CONCLUSION

Results may be used to provide inputs for CUAs examining the value of treatments that are associated with weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity in Japan.

Evaluating the Impact of Therapy on Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes: A Literature Review of Utilities Associated with Treatment-Related Attributes

Introduction

Treatment-related attributes and process characteristics such as dosing frequency, timing flexibility, ease of use of injection devices and unpleasant side-effects may have small but measurable effects on quality of life (QoL) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). A literature review was performed to identify recently published utility values quantifying the effect of treatment-related attributes on QoL.

Methods

Literature search strategies were designed using high-level medical subject heading (MeSH) terms supplemented with free-text terms and searches were run in March 2020 in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. For inclusion, studies were required to be published in full-text form, in English, since 2010 and report utility values (elicited using either direct or indirect methods) for treatment-related attributes or process characteristics including side effects, change in weight/body mass index (BMI), dosing frequency and timing flexibility, device attributes (e.g. needle handling, requirement for reconstitution) and convenience (e.g. waiting time).

Results

A total of 30 studies were included in the review, of which all but three were conducted in people with T2D. The EQ-5D was the most commonly used elicitation method (fourteen studies), followed by time tradeoff (TTO) methodology. Treatment-related adverse events and inconveniences such as needle handling in administration devices and waiting time were consistently associated with lower QoL, whereas lower dosing frequency and increased timing flexibility with dosing were consistently associated with utility benefits. The relationship between change in BMI and QoL was non-linear and influenced by baseline BMI.

Conclusion

Treatment-related attributes and process characteristics are associated with minor changes in QoL, which should be taken into account in long-term health economic modeling of new treatments and administration devices.

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Clinical Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: An Ambispective Study

INTRODUCTION

The method of therapy administration and injection device characteristics have been documented to influence perceptions and preference of treatment among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to assess the metabolic effectiveness and patient-reported satisfaction of once-weekly semaglutide compared to liraglutide in suboptimally controlled patients with T2D.

METHODS

We conducted this single-center cohort study at diabetes center clinics at a tertiary care hospital between February 2021 and August 2021. We included suboptimally controlled patients with T2D who had been treated with liraglutide for at least 3 months at baseline, then shifted to once-weekly semaglutide and followed up for the same period. Ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) metrics [i.e., mean glucose level, glycemic variability (GV), time above range (TAR), and time in range (TIR)] for baseline and follow-up were compared. To assess the satisfaction with shifting, we used the valid Arabic version of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status (DTSQs) and change (DTSQc) while the injection device preference was assessed using the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ).

RESULTS

We included 52 patients (25 male and 27 female), with a mean age of 48 (± 6) years and a mean diabetes mellitus duration of 7.27 (± 3.79) years. We observed a significantly decreased mean HbA1c level following semaglutide treatment (7.79% at study end vs. 8.07% at baseline, p < 0.001) and body weight (84.64 ± 7.68 vs. 87.15 ± 8.011, p < 0.001). Compared to the glucometrics data at baseline, we observed a significantly improved mean average glucose, GV, TAR, and TIR (p < 0.001). Data from the DTSQs and DTSQc questionnaires showed a high level of patient-reported satisfaction after shifting to semaglutide treatment. All patients preferred/strongly preferred once-weekly semaglutide over liraglutide in most DID-PQ questionnaire domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from once-daily liraglutide to once-weekly semaglutide led to improvements in both clinical measures of glycemic control and patient-reported satisfaction.

Health state utilities associated with weight loss in type 2 diabetes and obesity

INTRODUCTION

Health state utilities associated with weight change are needed as inputs for cost-utility analyses (CUAs) examining the value of treatments for obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Although some pharmaceutical treatments currently in development are associated with substantial weight loss, little is known about the utility impact of weight decreases greater than 10%. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with body weight decreases up to 20% based on preferences of individuals with obesity, with and without T2D.

METHODS

Health state vignettes were developed to represent respondents' own current weight and weight decreases of 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20%. Health state utilities were elicited in time trade-off interviews in two UK locations (Edinburgh and London) with a sample of participants with obesity, with and without T2D. Mean utility increases associated with each amount of weight decrease were calculated. Regression analyses were performed to derive a method for estimating utility change associated with weight decreases.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted with data from 405 individuals with obesity (202 with T2D, 203 without T2D). Utility increases associated with various levels of weight decrease ranged from 0.011 to 0.060 in the subgroup with T2D and 0.015 to 0.077 in the subgroup without T2D. All regression models found that the percentage of weight decrease was a highly significant predictor of change in utility (p < .0001). The relationship between weight change and utility change did not appear to be linear. Equations are recommended for estimating utility change based on the natural logarithm of percentage of weight decrease.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study may be used to provide inputs for CUAs examining and comparing the value of treatments that are associated with substantial amounts of weight loss in patients with obesity, with or without T2D.

Patient Perceptions of and Preferences Between Characteristics of Injectable Diabetes Treatments

INTRODUCTION

The administration of medications targeting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) has evolved over time. As injection delivery systems continue to evolve, it is necessary to understand patients' perceptions of currently available treatments. The objective of this study was to examine the patient perspective of injectable treatment for T2D and identify characteristics of these treatments that are most important to patients.

METHODS

Data were collected via an online survey study with a sample of individuals in the UK and US who were treated for T2D with injectable medication. The survey was designed to elicit perceptions of the treatment process for injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and insulin.

RESULTS

The sample included 504 participants (251 UK, 253 US). Approximately half (50.4%) were treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and half (49.6%) were treated with insulin. Respondents were presented with a list of 17 characteristics of injectable medication and asked to indicate which were most important to them. Respondents most frequently selected confidence in administering the correct dose (n = 300, 59.5%); ease of selecting the correct dose (n = 268, 53.2%); overall ease of using the injection device (n = 239, 47.4%); frequency of injections (n = 223, 44.2%); and ease of carrying the device when necessary to inject away from home (n = 190, 37.7%). Characteristics least frequently cited as important included dose escalation (n = 79, 15.7%); handling the needle (n = 74, 14.7%); connectivity to an electronic device (n = 70, 13.9%); and the time required to prepare and inject each dose (n = 62, 12.3%).

CONCLUSION

Results of this survey suggest that patients prioritize some attributes of injectable treatments over others. These findings may have implications for clinical practice and development of injection devices.

Values, preferences and burden of treatment for the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Assess values, preferences and burden of treatment that patients with type 2 diabetes consider when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with other glucose-lowering options.

METHODS

Paired reviewers independently included studies reporting quantitative or qualitative methods to assess values, preferences and burden of treatment reported by patients with type 2 diabetes regarding the initiation of GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i over other alternatives. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until May 2020 was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed with a specifically designed tool for values and preferences studies.

RESULTS

17 studies (7296 patients) proved eligible. Studies fulfilling criteria for SGLT-2i were not identified. Five studies (2662 patients) evaluated preferences for GLP-1 RA compared with other glucose-lowering medications. 12 studies (4634 patients) evaluated preferences between, at least, two kinds of GLP-1 RA or their injection devices based on the following attributes: efficacy, dose, application frequency, device characteristics. Among studies comparing GLP-1 RA to other glucose-lowering medications, some preferences were observed for dypeptil peptidase-4 inhibitors compared with once daily liraglutide. Comparing different attributes of GLP-1 RA drugs and devices, cardiovascular risk reduction, glucose lowering potential, once weekly and simple administered regimens were the most preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

As no evidence for preferences on SGLT-2i was available, only preferences for GLP-1 RA were assessed; however, evidence is still limited for the latter. Studies comparing preferences for GLP1-RA to other glucose-lowering alternatives only included twice daily or once daily injection regimens of GLP-1 RA drugs. According to our findings, once weekly alternatives are widely preferred than the formers. The extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes value reduced adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, weighed benefits against harms and burden of treatment is limited and with very low certainty.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020159284.

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.

The Unmet Medical Needs of Current Injectable Antidiabetic Therapies in China: Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives

PURPOSE

Patients with diabetes and health care professionals (HCPs) play important roles in effective application of injectable antidiabetic therapies (IATs). However, their concerns and opinions on IATs are rarely investigated in China. This study aims to assess unmet medical needs of IATs regarding patient concerns, patient satisfaction, aspects that need improvement, and training burden from patient and HCP perspectives.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey was conducted in 12 representative Chinese cities from December 2018 to January 2019. Patients with adult type 2 diabetes who were receiving IAT currently and had received IAT continuously for at least 1 month before the survey, endocrinologists with ≥5 years of experience and prescribing IAT in the past 1 month, and nurses with ≥3 years of experience and providing IAT training in the past 1 month were eligible participants. The patient survey assessed concerns of initiating IAT, satisfaction with IAT, aspects of IAT that need improvement, and IAT training received. The HCP survey evaluated patient concern of initiating IAT, aspects of IAT that need improvement, experience of providing IAT training, and self-reported burden of training. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

FINDINGS

In total, 500 patients, 200 endocrinologists, and 100 nurses were surveyed. The mean (SD) age of patients was 55.1 (11.8) years, with a disease duration of 7.6 (6.4) years. Of all patients, 391 (78.2%) were insulin users and 109 (21.8%) were glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist users. Of the top 4 concerns about initiating IAT, both patients and endocrinologists reported inconvenience of daily injection (58.0% of patients and 68.5% of endocrinologists), worries about insulin dependence (42.6% of patients and 62.5% of endocrinologists), and fear of injection (37.0% of patients and 66.5% of endocrinologists). Medical expenses, convenience of drug portability and storage, and injection site reactions were the top 3 aspects that need improvement according to both patients and HCPs. High injection frequency was also one of the most urgent aspects for improvement (mean urgency score, 3.8 for physicians and 4.0 for nurses). A typical IAT training session took a mean (SD) of 14.1 (9.7) minutes. Both patients and HCPs considered injection operation after dose is set and symptoms and treatment for adverse effects as the 2 most time-consuming training contents. In addition, 97.1% of endocrinologists who provided training and 97.0% of nurses thought a more user-friendly IAT would reduce their training burden.

IMPLICATIONS

Study results indicate that the IATs with more convenient drug portability and storage, fewer injection site reactions and adverse events, less injection frequency, more user-friendly design, and fewer steps for injection might help improve patient experience with self-injection and reduce HCPs' training burden.

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER)

AIM

When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset.

RESULTS

There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.

Patient Preferences and Health State Utilities Associated with Mealtime Insulin Concentrations Among Patients with Diabetes in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Standard concentration (100 units/mL) mealtime insulin is frequently used to treat patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). A more concentrated version of the medication (200 units/mL) has been available in Italy since 2016. This concentrated version is bioequivalent to the standard version and delivers the same amount of medication but in half the volume of liquid. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with standard and concentrated rapid-acting mealtime analog insulin.

METHODS

Participants with T1D and T2D in Italy valued two health states in time trade-off interviews. The descriptions of diabetes and treatment in the two health states were identical, differing only in terms of insulin concentration (e.g., half as much liquid for the same dose, less effort needed to press the injection button, and fewer injection pens required with concentrated insulin). To ensure participants understood the health states, they were shown a short video illustrating the differences between concentrations.

RESULTS

A total of 217 participants completed the interviews (49.8% male; mean age 56.1 years; 109 from Milan; 108 from Rome; 12.0% T1D; 88.0% T2D). When asked which health state they preferred, 98.2% responded the concentrated version, 0.9% said the standard version, and 0.9% had no preference. Mean [standard deviation (SD)] utilities rounded to three decimals were 0.892 (0.099) for the concentrated version and 0.884 (0.101) for the standard version. The mean (SD; p value) utility difference between the standard and concentrated rapid-acting insulin was 0.007 (0.019; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study provide insight into patient preferences associated with concentration of rapid-acting insulin. Although the difference in utility is small, patients consistently preferred the concentrated formulation over the standard insulin, and for some patients this difference had an impact on utility valuations. These results suggest that the concentration of rapid-acting insulin should be considered because it could affect treatment preference and quality of life.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Patient preferences and health state utilities associated with dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy

Aims: Several glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are available as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes. These medications vary in their injection devices, and these differences could impact quality-of-life and patient preference. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with injection devices for two weekly GLP-1 therapies. Materials and methods: Participants with type 2 diabetes in Italy (Milan, Rome) valued three health state vignettes in time trade-off interviews. The health states had identical descriptions of type 2 diabetes, but differed in description of the treatment process: (1) oral treatment regimen, (2) oral plus weekly dulaglutide injection, and (3) oral plus weekly semaglutide injection. Results: A total of 216 participants completed interviews (57.9% male; mean age = 60.5). Almost all patients (99.5%) preferred the oral health state over either injection health state. Comparing between the two injections, 88.4% preferred the dulaglutide health state, while 11.6% preferred the semaglutide state. Mean (SD) utilities were 0.907 (0.076) for oral, 0.894 (0.085) for dulaglutide, and 0.887 (0.087) for semaglutide. The mean (SD) utility difference between the injection device health states was 0.007 (0.019). Limitations: Although the health states were designed to match the injection device instructions for use as closely as possible, vignette-based methods are inherently limited because results are based on perceptions of the health states rather than actual patient experience with the devices. Conclusions: Results provide insight into patient preferences associated with injection devices for weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. The majority of patients preferred the dulaglutide device over the semaglutide device, and for some patients, this difference had an impact on utility valuations. Patient preferences for injection devices could be an important factor to consider when selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor-agonist treatment attributes

PURPOSE

The importance of patient-centered care in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is widely advocated. Understanding the attributes of T2DM medications important to patients is thus essential for effective management, in order to limit disease progression. This literature review aimed to identify studies comparing patient preferences, based on process and outcome attributes, between GLP1-receptor agonist (RA) profiles and between GLP1 RA and insulin profiles.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library (2005-present) were searched for studies in patients with T2DM or the general population that compared preferences for GLP1 RAs or GLP1 RAs versus insulin using contingent valuation, conjoint analysis (discrete-choice experiments [DCEs], willingness to pay), rating-based approaches of specific attributes, standard gamble, or time trade-off. Studies comparing drug A versus drug B without explicit attribute valuation were excluded.

RESULTS

Ten records met eligibility criteria. Eight studies compared preferences for GLP1 RA- profile attributes, one compared GLP1 RA versus insulin glargine profiles, and one addressed both comparisons. Important attributes driving patient preferences in DCEs were dose frequency, type of device, needle size, change in glycated hemoglobin, and adverse-event profile. Time trade-off evaluations demonstrated that weekly GLP1 RA injection-device attributes (reconstitution, waiting during preparation, needle handling) had a measurable impact on preference. Willingness-to-pay analysis showed that patients were more willing to pay extra for attributes of once-daily liraglutide over twice-weekly exenatide or insulin. Direct preference elicitation in DCEs revealed that patients preferred medication profiles representing GLP1 RAs with less frequent dosing and preferred GLP1 RA profiles over insulin.

CONCLUSION

Process and outcome attributes are important drivers of patient preference for GLP1 RAs. Findings from patient-preference studies can inform clinical decision-making and help align care with patient values, which has the potential to improve medication adherence and outcomes.