Evaluating preferences for profiles of GLP-1 receptor agonists among injection-naïve type 2 diabetes patients in the UK

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.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Final patient-reported outcomes at 24 months

AIM

To report health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM) with two commonly prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) from the prospective, observational TROPHIES study (The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TROPHIES was a two-cohort, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany and Italy. Adults with a T2D diagnosis, naïve to injectable treatment for T2D and prescribed dulaglutide or liraglutide as their first injectable GLM, were eligible for inclusion. Study objectives included describing the following PROs associated with the treatment of T2D with GLP-1RAs: health-related quality of life; impact of weight on self-perception; life and work productivity; and patient satisfaction with treatment and injection device. Additional analyses formally compared PRO measures between the treatment cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, improvements from baseline in PRO scores were observed among people who started dulaglutide or liraglutide. A more pronounced trend of improvement was observed in the dulaglutide cohort for changes from baseline in treatment satisfaction and impact of weight on self-perception, supported by statistically significant differences between treatment cohorts in additional comparative analyses at 12, 18 and 24 months. More positive patient perceptions of the injection device were observed with dulaglutide than with liraglutide.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in PROs observed in TROPHIES, which were more evident with dulaglutide than liraglutide, reflect a relevant clinical benefit. From the patients' perspective, satisfaction, and confidence in continuing treatment with GLP-1RAs is likely to contribute to long-term treatment persistence.

Development of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess patient perceptions of simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Treatments for type 2 diabetes vary widely in their complexity. The simplicity or complexity of a treatment regimen may have an impact on patient preference, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop two draft patient-reported outcome instruments focusing on patients' experience with simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The instruments were developed in a series of steps: gather information to support development of a concept elicitation interview guide (literature review and expert interviews), concept elicitation interviews with patients (N = 30), cognitive interviews with patients (N = 20), and a translatability assessment.

RESULTS

In concept elicitation interviews, patients with type 2 diabetes reported a range of treatment attributes that influence their perceptions of treatment simplicity and complexity, such as injection devices, medication preparation, dose timing, dose frequency, ease of taking the correct dose, flexibility of dose schedule, remembering to take medication, and food requirements. Two draft questionnaires were developed based on the literature review, expert interviews, and concept elicitation interviews with patients. Revisions were made to these draft instruments based on qualitative interviews with patients and translatability assessment.

DISCUSSION

The qualitative research conducted in this study supports the content validity of two newly developed instruments, the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (Sim-Q) and the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire-Comparison (Sim-Q-Comp), designed to assess the simplicity and complexity of diabetes treatment from the patient's perspective.

Patients' Preferences for Connected Insulin Pens: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

This study quantified how people with diabetes value the unique features of connected insulin pens and related mobile apps, and the underlying reasons for preferring connected versus non-connected insulin pens.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in the USA and UK to elicit preferences of adults (≥ 18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes for attributes of insulin pens. Attributes included device type, dosing support, glucose monitoring, additional app features, and data sharing. Relative attribute importance (RAI) scores were calculated to capture the relative importance of an attribute. Predicted choice probabilities were obtained to compare different profiles for connected and non-connected insulin pens.

RESULTS

The DCE was completed by 540 participants (58.9% male; 90.7% Caucasian; mean age, 58.3 years; 69.4% type 2 diabetes). Participants most valued the possibility of using a connected insulin pen with dosing support and automated dose logging (RAI = 39.9%), followed by automatic transfer of glucose levels (RAI = 29.0%), additional features of tracking diet and physical activity (RAI = 14.6%), data sharing (RAI = 13.6%), and device type (RAI = 2.9%). All profiles of connected insulin pens were preferred over a non-connected pen (p < 0.001), and pen profiles with advanced features were preferred over those without (p < 0.001). Preferences differed by age but not diabetes type, country of residence, or insulin regimen.

CONCLUSION

People with diabetes in the USA and UK prefer connected over non-connected insulin pens due largely to the availability of automated logging of dose and glucose levels.

The Impact of Substantial Improvements in HbA1c and Weight Loss on the Medication Preferences of People with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE

To quantify the preferences of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) for treatment attributes of a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) versus an injectable GLP-1 RA medication profile.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Injection-naive people taking oral medications for T2D in the US and UK completed a web survey including a discrete choice experiment to quantify patients' preferences for five treatment attributes: delivery system, frequency of nausea, frequency of hypoglycemia, HbA1c reduction, and weight reduction. Attributes and levels were based on head-to-head clinical trial data of tirzepatide 5mg, 10mg, and 15mg versus semaglutide 1mg. Preference data were analyzed separately by country using multinomial mixed logit (MXL) models. MXL parameters were used to estimate the predicted preference for each tirzepatide dose versus semaglutide 1mg. Direct preferences for each dose of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1mg were elicited.

RESULTS

Participants (N=620) in the US (N=301) and UK (N=319) were 50.8% and 50.5% female with mean ages of 60.7 years and 58.9 years, respectively. The order and magnitude of relative attribute importance (RAI) scores differed between countries. HbA1c reduction (26.3%) had the greatest impact on US participants' preferences, and hypoglycemia (32.8%) did among UK participants. Attribute-level marginal utility results indicated preferences for greater HbA1c improvements, the single-use pre-filled pen, lower hypoglycemia, greater weight reductions, and lower frequency of nausea. Assuming the availability of only tirzepatide or semaglutide 1mg, the predicted preference for tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15mg) in the US is 95.6% (vs 4.4% for semaglutide 1mg) and in the UK was 86.3% (vs 13.7% for semaglutide 1mg).

CONCLUSION

HbA1c reduction, frequency of hypoglycemia, and weight reduction are key drivers of preferences among people with T2D when considering medication options. Overall, people with T2D are likely to prefer the tirzepatide over the semaglutide 1mg medication profiles.

Comparison of the Usability, Accuracy, Preference, and Satisfaction of Three Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Pen Devices in People With Type 2 Diabetes

AIM

This study's aim was to compare the time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences with pen devices for the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide XR BCise, and semaglutide.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this triple crossover, open-label, simulated injection study, GLP-1 receptor agonist pen devices were compared, with time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences as primary outcomes. Participants had type 2 diabetes and were naive to GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy. Participants watched instructional videos for each device, demonstrated administration, and then provided feedback after each demonstration. Investigators tracked errors and omissions of demonstration steps for accuracy and time. Differences across devices were compared using univariate mixed models, adjusting for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 60 participants, 50% were male, a majority (65%) were Caucasian, and most (65%) had adequate health literacy. Participants rated the dulaglutide device easier to use than those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.001 for each). Participants expressed greater satisfaction with the dulaglutide device compared with those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.01 for each). Most participants (75%) preferred the dulaglutide device overall; however, many participants (61%) preferred the size and portability of the semaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took less time to use than the exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide devices (69 vs. 126 and 146 seconds, respectively; P <0.001 for each). Participants were less accurate when using the dulaglutide device.

CONCLUSION

Most participants preferred the dulaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took the least amount of time to demonstrate; however, demonstration accuracy was lower.

Treatment-Related Attributes of Diabetes Therapies and How People with Type 2 Diabetes Report Their Impact on Indicators of Medication-Taking Behaviors

Purpose

Understanding the treatment-related attributes influencing medication-taking behaviors in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is important for delivery of patient-centered care. This review aimed to identify and summarize studies in which people with T2D (PwD) directly indicated the treatment-related attributes associated with medication-taking behaviors or intentions.

Materials and Methods

EMBASE and PubMed were searched for studies (Jan 2005-May 2021) reporting the link between PwD-expressed diabetes treatment-related attributes and the decision to initiate, adhere to, or discontinue a T2D medication. Eligible studies reported attributes associated with oral antidiabetes drugs or injectables (not insulin). Studies not explicitly exploring the link between attributes and indicators of behaviors (eg most discrete-choice experiments [DCE] and those interrogating electronic medical records or claims databases) were excluded, as were studies where the link between attribute and behavior came from anyone but the PwD.

Results

Of the 6464 studies identified, 16 were included. Studies were conducted across multiple countries; the USA was most represented (n = 8 studies). The impact of treatment attributes was described on indicators of initiation (n = 3), adherence (n = 12), and discontinuation (n = 4). Some studies evaluated multiple behaviors. PwD perspectives were solicited by structured questionnaires (n = 10), qualitative approaches (n = 4), or DCE explicitly exploring the link to medication-taking behaviors (n = 2). Closed- (n = 9) and open-ended questions (n = 7) were employed. Across studies, several factors including glycemic efficacy (n = 9), weight change (n = 9), dosing frequency (n = 9), hypoglycemia (n = 8), gastrointestinal adverse events (n = 8), regimen complexity (n = 6), route of administration (n = 3), and cardiovascular risk (n = 1) were reported as influencing behaviors, being motivators or barriers to initiation, adherence, or discontinuation.

Conclusion

Several attributes influence how PwD take their medications. Insights gained directly from PwD have the potential to assist stakeholders in making more informed, patient-centered, treatment decisions, thus choosing and managing medications that PwD are comfortable initiating and persisting with over the longer term.

Preference for Type 2 Diabetes Therapies in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic condition associated with substantial clinical and economic burden. As multiple therapeutic options are available, patient preferences on treatment characteristics are key in T2DM therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the preferences of US patients with T2DM for therapies recommended for first pharmacologic intensification after metformin.

Methods

As part of a discrete choice experiment, an online survey was designed using literature review and qualitative interview findings. Eligibility was met by US patients with T2DM who were aged 18 years or older with an HbA_1c ≥ 6.5%. Anonymized therapy profiles were created from six antidiabetic therapies including oral and injectable semaglutide, dulaglutide, empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and thiazolidinediones.

Results

Eligible patients (n = 500) had a mean HbA_1c of 7.4%, and a mean BMI of 32.0 kg/m², the majority of which (72.2%) were injectable-naïve. The treatment characteristic with greatest importance was mode and frequency of administration (35.5%), followed by body weight change (29.2%), cardiovascular event risk (19.1%), hypoglycemic event risk (9.9%), and HbA_1c change (6.5%). An oral semaglutide-like profile was preferred by 91.9–70.1% of respondents depending on the comparator agent, and preference was significant in each comparison (p < 0.05); an injectable semaglutide-like profile was preferred by 89.3–55.7% of respondents in each comparison depending on the comparator agent.

Conclusion

Patients with T2DM in the USA are significantly more likely to prefer oral or injectable semaglutide-like profiles over those of key comparators from the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and thiazolidinedione classes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02181-7.

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.

Patients' Preferences for Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

PURPOSE

To determine patients' preferences for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based discrete choice experiment was conducted among US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in May 2021. Six attributes-the route and frequency of administration, the chance of reaching target HbA1c in six months, the percentage reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the chance of gastrointestinal side effects, the chance of genital infection, and out-of-pocket cost per month-were identified from literature review and consultation with patients and clinicians. A Bayesian efficient design was used to generate choice sets. Each choice set contained two hypothetical SGLT-2i and GLP-1 RA alternatives described by the attributes and an opt-out alternative. A total of 176 patients were asked to select the most preferred option from each choice set. Mixed logit (ML) and latent class (LC) models were developed. The conditional relative importance of each attribute was determined.

RESULTS

The ML model showed the out-of-pocket cost had the highest conditional relative importance, followed by the chance of reaching the target HbA1c. The best LC model revealed two patient classes. All attributes were significantly important to the patients in both classes, except the chance of genital infection in class 2. Compared to the patients in class 2, the patients in class 1 were older (approximately 65 vs 56 years) and had a higher number of comorbidities (approximately three vs two).

CONCLUSION

T2DM patients placed different preference weights or importance across SGLT-2i and GLP-1 RA attributes. Preference heterogeneity was found among patients with different ages and numbers of comorbidities.

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.

Medication adherence to injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal medication adherence has been associated with increased resource utilisation and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of T2D. However, medications in this class differ considerably in their dosing frequency, which may impact adherence. We sought to perform a meta-analysis to compare adherence to injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with T2D.

METHODS

Medline and Scopus were searched from 1/2005 to 7/2020 using keywords and MeSH terms pertaining to adherence and GLP-1RAs. Studies of adults with T2D were included if they compared adherence (as measured by proportion of days covered [PDC]) to injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily. A meta-analysis of non-overlapping studies was performed to evaluate the primary outcome of non-adherence, defined as the proportion of patients with a PDC < 80.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies evaluating 75 159 patients (range: 2886-30 097) with T2D were included. The follow-up periods of included studies ranged from 6 to 12 months. Injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly were either dulaglutide, albiglutide or exenatide extended release; while liraglutide was the injectable once daily agent evaluated in all included studies. Upon meta-analysis, once weekly GLP-1RA dosing was associated with an 11% lower risk of non-adherence compared to once daily dosing (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% confidence interval = 0.83-0.95; I²  = 89%).

CONCLUSION

Once weekly dosing of injectable GLP-1RAs was associated with better adherence vs once daily dosing among patients with T2D. These findings coupled with the known detrimental consequences of non-adherence suggest that dosing frequency is an important factor to consider when selecting a GLP-1RA.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Usage in Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care for the UK and Beyond: A Narrative Review

The scientific landscape of treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) has changed rapidly in the last decade with newer treatments becoming available. However, a large proportion of people with T2D are not able to achieve glycaemic goals because of clinical inertia. The majority of T2D management is in primary care, where clinicians (medical, nursing and pharmacist staff) play an important role in addressing patient needs and achieving treatment goals. However, management of T2D is challenging because of the heterogeneity of T2D and complexity of comorbidity, time constraints, guidance overload and the evolving treatments. Additionally, the current coronavirus disease pandemic poses additional challenges to the management of chronic diseases such as T2D, including routine access to patients for monitoring and communication. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of agents that have evolved rapidly in recent years. These agents act in a glucose-dependent manner to promote insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion, as well as enhancing satiety and reducing hunger. As a result, they are effective treatment options for people with T2D, achieving glycated haemoglobin reductions, weight loss and potential cardiovascular benefit, as monotherapy or as add-on to other glucose-lowering therapies. However, given the complexity of managing T2D, it is important to equip primary care clinicians with clear information regarding efficacy, safety and appropriate positioning of GLP-1 RA therapies in clinical practice. This review provides a summary of clinical and real-world evidence along with practical guidance, with the aim of aiding primary care clinicians in the initiation and monitoring of GLP-1 RAs to help ensure that desired outcomes are realised. Furthermore, a benefit/risk tool has been developed on the basis of current available evidence and guidelines to support primary care clinicians in selecting individuals who are most likely to benefit from GLP-1 RA therapies, in addition to indicating clinical situations where caution is needed.

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.

Treatment Patterns and Persistence With GLP-1 RA Treatments Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in France: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In type 2 diabetes (T2D), persistence with injectable glucose-lowering therapy is associated with better outcomes. This study used real-world pharmacy data to report on persistence with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with T2D in France.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis presents longitudinal data from approximately 7500 French retail pharmacies that filled GLP-1-RA prescriptions for GLP-1 RA-naïve patients with T2D ('index therapy': dulaglutide; once-weekly exenatide [exenatide QW]; twice-daily exenatide [exenatide BID]; liraglutide) between January 2015 and December 2016 (follow-up ≥ 12 months). The main outcome was treatment persistence (absence of discontinuation [gap following index therapy prescription ≥ 2-fold the expected duration of that prescription] or switch [new non-index glucose-lowering prescription issued ≤ 30 days before/after index therapy discontinuation]). Persistence was calculated as the median duration through Kaplan-Meier survival analysis over the variable follow-up period and as the proportion of patients persistent at 12 months. In addition to persistence outcomes (discontinuation/switch), three other treatment modifications were assessed: augmentation/intensification with a new non-index glucose-lowering therapy; off-label dose increase (daily dose > 20 μg for exenatide BID; two consecutive prescriptions with daily dose > 1.8 mg for liraglutide); and off-label dose decrease (two consecutive prescriptions with average daily dose lower than the index dose). Off-label dose changes were not assessed for dulaglutide or exenatide QW (as single-dose, prefilled pens).

RESULTS

Median persistence was longest for dulaglutide (373 days) versus liraglutide (205 days), exenatide QW (184 days) and exenatide BID (93 days). Twelve months after treatment initiation, the percentage of persistent patients ranged from 51% (dulaglutide) to 21% (exenatide BID). Overall, treatment modification occurred less commonly for dulaglutide than for the other index GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

This analysis revealed marked differences in persistence among GLP-1 RAs, which was highest for dulaglutide and lowest for exenatide BID. The prospective TROPHIES study will provide additional information about persistence with dulaglutide and liraglutide, including reasons for treatment modifications.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Data from a Real-World Study in Spain

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to describe utilization patterns, persistence, resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in routine clinical practice in Spain.

METHODS

This retrospective study of medical records in the Big-Pac database identified adults starting treatment with once-weekly (QW) dulaglutide, exenatide-QW or once-daily liraglutide between 1 November 2015 and 30 June 2017. Patients were followed for up to 18 months from treatment initiation. Data on clinical characteristics of patients, treatment patterns, average daily dose and costs were obtained for the three cohorts. Persistence over the 18-month period was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves. All analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients were included in this study (dulaglutide [n = 492], exenatide-QW [n = 438] or liraglutide [n = 472]); 52.8% were men, and the mean (SD) age was 62 (11) years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 8.1% (1.2) and body mass index was 35.5 (3.2) kg/m² at treatment initiation. Persistence at 18 months was 59.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.8-63.4) for dulaglutide, 45.7% (95% CI 41.0-50.4) for exenatide-QW and 46.6% (95% CI 42.1-51.1) for liraglutide. The average (SD) dose was 1.2 (0.4) mg/week for dulaglutide, 1.9 (0.3) mg/week for exenatide-QW and 1.1 (0.3) mg/day for liraglutide. The average reduction in HbA1c levels at 1 year was - 0.68% for patients who initiated dulaglutide, - 0.54% for patients who initiated exenatide-QW and - 0.50% for patients who initiated liraglutide. The mean (SD) total annual health care costs were €4072 (1946) for dulaglutide, €4418 (2382) for exenatide-QW and €4382 (2389) for liraglutide.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that patients who started treatment with dulaglutide had higher persistence over 18 months, presented lower HbA1c levels at 12 months and incurred lower annual total healthcare costs than patients who initiated exenatide-QW or liraglutide.

Switching between GLP-1 receptor agonists in clinical practice: Expert consensus and practical guidance

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are an established treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Differences between GLP-1RAs in pharmacokinetics, dosing regimens and clinical effects, including cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, mean there may be benefits to switching from one to another. However, clinical guidance on switching is lacking and data from clinical trials are limited. This article provides a clinical perspective and consensus on the benefits of switching between GLP-1RAs, the triggers for switching and how best to manage this in clinical practice. Once weekly (OW) semaglutide is used as an example to illustrate how the authors might switch to a different GLP-1RA in clinical practice.

METHODS

Literature was searched and perspectives from 10 healthcare professionals with experience in switching patients with T2D to OW semaglutide from another GLP-1RA were collated.

RESULTS

Medical triggers for switching to another GLP-1RA included HbA_1c targets not being met, a desire for additional weight loss, poor adherence, patients moving to increased CV risk status and adverse effects with the current GLP-1RA. Non-medical triggers for switching included patient preference, cost, formulary changes and insurance mandates. Once the decision to switch is made, an individualised approach is recommended, based on considerations that include reimbursement requirements, treatment duration with (and dose of) previous GLP-1RA, the patient's experience initiating the prior GLP-1RA, any concomitant treatment and clinical characteristics. When switching, it is important to emphasise that treatment burden will not increase and that if gastrointestinal adverse effects occur, they are typically transient. Any transient gastrointestinal adverse effects that may occur (or recur) when switching to another GLP-1RA can be reduced by slow up-titration and advising patients to reduce food portion sizes and fat intake.

CONCLUSION

Switching from one GLP-1RA to another, such as OW semaglutide, can provide clinical benefits and may delay the need for treatment intensification.

Preference for Oral and Injectable GLP-1 RA Therapy Profiles in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) approved to date are administered by injection; therefore, patient perceptions of an oral GLP-1 RA are unknown. This discrete choice experiment explored preferences for (unbranded) oral and injectable GLP-1 RA profiles among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

An online survey was designed using literature review and qualitative interview findings, and administered to Japanese patients with T2D and HbA_1c ≥ 7.0% receiving oral antiglycaemic medication (with no experience of injectable antiglycaemic medication). Therapy profiles were created using Japanese head-to-head trial data for orally administered semaglutide (7 mg and 14 mg), injectable dulaglutide (0.75 mg), and injectable liraglutide (0.9 mg). Profiles were not labelled. Choice tasks tested preference between hypothetical profiles, preference between profiles with actual trial data, and willingness to initiate treatment. Relative importance of attributes was determined using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

A total of 500 respondents were analysed: mean age 61.2 years; 93.8% male; mean HbA_1c 7.6%; 78.2% with HbA_1c ≥ 7.0 to < 8%; 89% with HbA_1c above personal target. Mean BMI was 25.4 kg/m²; 49% had obesity (≥ 25 kg/m²). The treatment attribute with greatest importance was mode and frequency of administration (49.1%), followed by nausea risk (30.8%), weight change (11.3%), and HbA_1c change (8.8%). Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg-like profiles were both preferred: the 7 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 91.0% of respondents) and liraglutide (by 89.4%); the 14 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 88.2%) and liraglutide (by 94.4%). Willingness to initiate treatment was also higher for orally administered semaglutide-like profiles: 62.4% with 7 mg and 64.0% with 14 mg, versus 13.6% and 11.0% with injectable GLP-1 RA-like profiles. Subgroup results were generally consistent with the overall sample.

CONCLUSION

Japanese patients with T2D appear to prefer oral GLP-1 RA profiles over injectable GLP-1 RA profiles, and administration appears to be the most important factor in this decision. This highlights the unmet need for an effective and orally administered GLP-1 RA for the treatment of T2D in Japan.

Efficacy and safety of once-monthly efpeglenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a phase 2 placebo-controlled, 16-week randomized dose-finding study

AIMS

To determine the optimal dose(s) of once-monthly administration of efpeglenatide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial (NCT02081118), patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to subcutaneous efpeglenatide (8, 12 or 16 mg once monthly; n = 158) or placebo (n = 51). The 16-week treatment period included a 4-week titration phase with once-weekly efpeglenatide 4 mg, followed by one dose of efpeglenatide 8 mg once monthly and two doses of the assigned once-monthly dose. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 17.

RESULTS

All efpeglenatide doses significantly reduced HbA1c versus placebo (P < 0.0001 for all). Overall, the least squares mean difference in HbA1c reductions between efpeglenatide and placebo was -7.7 mmol/mol (-0.71%; baseline to week 17). At week 17, a significantly greater proportion of efpeglenatide patients had an HbA1c level <53 mmol/mol (<7%) versus placebo (48.7% vs. 30.6%; P = 0.0320). Significant body weight loss occurred across all efpeglenatide doses (placebo-corrected reduction -2.0 kg [efpeglenatide overall]; P = 0.0003). The safety profile was consistent with GLP-1RAs, with gastrointestinal (GI) disorders being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. Fluctuations in effects on glucose levels and rates of GI events occurred between peak and trough efpeglenatide concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Efpeglenatide once monthly (following once-weekly titration) has significant benefits with regard to HbA1c and weight reduction versus placebo in patients with T2D. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of efpeglenatide once monthly.

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-Reported Outcomes and Impact of Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has the second highest prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the Middle East. There is a paucity of research on the experiences and treatment preferences of patients with T2DM in KSA. This study explored Saudi patients' health-related quality of life, eating habits, experiences during Ramadan, and preference between two glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) treatment devices.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in three cities in KSA. Participants completed sociodemographic and clinical forms, EQ-5D-5L, Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions, and a diabetes treatment survey. Participants also viewed instructional videos on GLP-1 RA injection devices and indicated their device preference.

RESULTS

Of the 310 participants, 53% were male. The mean age was 43 years (range: 30.0-75.0), duration since diabetes diagnosis was 6.3 years (range: 0.2-27.1), the most commonly reported last HbA1c level was between ≥7.1% and 8% (45%). The mean EQ-5D-5L index score was 0.90, with some participants reporting problems with pain/discomfort (34.5%) and usual activities (33.2%). Patients reported a low-to-moderate impact of weight on self-perception. In preparation for Ramadan, participants sought physician advice on diabetes management (37%) and/or increased checks of their blood glucose (37%). After watching the videos, 89% (n=277) of participants indicated a device preference, with significantly more preferring the dulaglutide device (n=186, 67%) over the semaglutide device (n=91, 33%) (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that T2DM has a significant social, emotional, and behavioral impact on the lives of patients in KSA.

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.

GLP-1 RA Treatment and Dosing Patterns Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Six Countries: A Retrospective Analysis of Pharmacy Claims Data

INTRODUCTION

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class is evolving and expanding. This retrospective database study evaluated recent real-world treatment and dosing patterns of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating GLP-1 RAs in Belgium (BE), France (FR), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), the Netherlands (NL), and Canada (CA).

METHODS

Adult T2D patients initiating GLP-1 RA therapy (dulaglutide [DULA], exenatide twice daily [exBID], exenatide once weekly [exQW], liraglutide [LIRA], or lixisenatide [LIXI]) from 2015 to 2016 were identified using the IQVIA (IQVIA, Durham, NC, and Danbury, CT, USA) Real-World Data Adjudicated Pharmacy Claims. The therapy initiation date was termed the 'index date.' Eligible patients had ≥ 180 days pre-index and ≥ 360 days post-index. Persistence (until discontinuation or switch) was evaluated over the variable follow-up using Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis. Average daily dose (ADD) was calculated until discontinuation or switch.

RESULTS

A total of 34,649 DULA, 3616 exBID, 11,138 exQW, 48,317 LIRA, and 2,204 LIXI patients were included in the analysis (34.9-63.2% female; median age range 53-62 years; median follow-up 16-30 months). Proportion persistent at 1-year post-index was 36.8-67.2% for DULA, 5.9-44.4% for exBID, 24.7-44.2% for exQW, 22.2-57.5% for LIRA, and 15.5-40.0% for LIXI. Median time persistent (days) was 245-381 for DULA, 62-243 for exBID, 121-319 for exQW, 103-507 for LIRA, and 99-203 for LIXI. Mean ADD was 13.21-20.43 µg for exBID, 1.44-1.68 mg for LIRA, and 19.88-20.54 µg for LIXI. Mean average weekly dose (AWD) ranged from 2.03 to 2.14 mg for exQW. Mean AWD for DULA was 1.25 mg in Canada and ranged from 1.43 to 1.53 mg in the other countries.

CONCLUSION

Across six countries, persistence was highest among DULA patients and generally lowest among exBID patients. ADD/AWD for all GLP-1 RAs was in line with the recommended label. Longer-term data would be useful to obtain a better understanding of GLP-1 RA treatment patterns over time.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Adherence, persistence, glycaemic control and costs among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with liraglutide or exenatide once weekly at 12-month follow-up in a real-world setting in the United States

AIMS

To evaluate adherence, persistence, glycaemic control and costs at 12-month follow-up for patients initiating dulaglutide versus liraglutide or exenatide once weekly.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present retrospective observational claims study included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for dulaglutide, liraglutide or exenatide once weekly from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%, and persistence was measured by time to discontinuation of index therapy. Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration was assessed in a subset with pre- and post-index HbA1c results. Propensity scores were used to match the cohorts.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were balanced for the matched cohorts, dulaglutide versus liraglutide (n = 2471) and dulaglutide versus exenatide once weekly (n = 1891). Among those initiating dulaglutide there was a significantly higher proportion of adherent patients compared with the groups initiating liraglutide (51.2% vs. 38.2%; P < 0.001) and exenatide once weekly (50.7% vs. 31.9%; P < 0.001). At 12 months, 55% of patients in the dulaglutide group versus 43.8% in the liraglutide group (P < 0.001), and 54.9% in the dulaglutide versus 34.4% in the exenatide once-weekly group (P < 0.001) were persistent. The dulaglutide group had a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than the liraglutide group (-34.24 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.032), and a greater, but nonsignificant, reduction in HbA1c than the exenatide once-weekly group (-34.46 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.056). The diabetes-related total costs were not significantly different between the dulaglutide and the liraglutide group ($16,174 vs. $16,694; P = 0.184), and were significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly ($15,768 vs. $14,615; P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence and persistence are important considerations in patient-centric treatment selection for patients with T2D. Higher adherence and persistence for dulaglutide compared with liraglutide or exenatide once weekly are relevant criteria when choosing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment for patients with T2D.

Patient Preferences for GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Japan: A Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) are increasing in Japan, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are commonly used to treat the disease. The objective of this study was to use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to characterize patient preferences for clinical treatment features of two GLP-1 RAs-dulaglutide 0.75 mg and semaglutide 0.50 mg-among patients with T2D in Japan.

METHODS

Adult patients with T2D in Japan were administered the DCE via a web-based survey. The DCE examined patient preferences for five treatment attributes (each described by two or three levels), including method of administration, HbA1c change, reduction in cardiovascular (CV) risk, weight change, and common side effects (i.e., nausea). Results were analyzed using multinomial and mixed logit models, and predicted choice probability was calculated to determine the overall probability that either dulaglutide or semaglutide DCE levels were preferred. One DCE choice task included a direct comparison of the dulaglutide 0.75 mg versus semaglutide 0.50 mg treatment profiles.

RESULTS

190 subjects completed the survey; 29 were excluded after failing the predefined internal validity assessments. In the final analysis sample (N = 161), the attribute with the largest effect on the subjects' choices was reduction in CV risk, followed by HbA1c change and common side effects. Patients' predicted choice probability for the semaglutide profile was 78%, versus 22% for the dulaglutide profile. 28% of patients were "very willing" to initiate treatment with semaglutide's product profile, versus 6% for dulaglutide.

CONCLUSION

In this study, reduction in CV risk and HbA1c change were the key drivers of GLP-1 RA medication preference in Japanese patients with T2D. Overall, the majority of the patients preferred a product with attribute levels reflecting the semaglutide 0.50 mg profile, with a known CV risk reduction benefit and superior HbA1c reduction.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Patient preferences for treatment in type 2 diabetes: the Italian discrete-choice experiment analysis

AIMS

Several drug classes are now available to achieve a satisfactory metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), but patients' preferences may differ.

METHODS

In a discrete-choice experiment, we tested T2DM patients' preferences for recent antidiabetic drugs, in the event that their treatment might require intensification. The following attributes were considered: (a) route of administration; (b) type of delivery; (c) timing; (d) risk of adverse events; (e) effects on body weight. Twenty-two possible scenarios were built, transferred into 192 paired choices and proposed to 491 cases naïve to injectable treatments and 171 treated by GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). Analyses were performed by descriptive statistics and random effects logit regression model.

RESULTS

Preferences according to dosing frequency, risk of nausea and urinary tract infections (UTls) were similar across groups, age, sex and BMI. Administration route and delivery type accounted for 1/3 of relative importance; the risk of UTIs, nausea and dosing frequency for ≈ 20% each, and weight loss for only 6%. Two significant interactions emerged (p < 0.01): type of delivery × group, and weight change × BMI class. Irrespective of previous treatment, the three preferred choices were injectable, coupled with weekly dosing and a ready-to-use device (first two choices). In a regression model, being naïve or non-naïve changed the ranking of preferences (p < 0.001), and the order was systematically shifted towards injectable medications in non-naïve subjects.

CONCLUSION

Easy-to-deliver, injectable treatment is preferred in T2DM, independently of treatment history, and previous experience with GLP-1RAs strengthens patients' willingness to accept injectable drugs.

Personalizing Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Selection: Combining Network Meta-analysis, Individualized Risk, and Patient Preferences for Unified Decision Support

BACKGROUND

Personalizing medical treatment often requires practitioners to compare multiple treatment options, assess a patient's unique risk and benefit from each option, and elicit a patient's preferences around treatment. We integrated these 3 considerations into a decision-modeling framework for the selection of second-line glycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Based on multicriteria decision analysis, we developed a unified treatment decision support tool accounting for 3 factors: patient preferences, disease outcomes, and medication efficacy and safety profiles. By standardizing and multiplying these 3 factors, we calculated the ranking score for each medication. This approach was applied to determining second-line glycemic therapy by integrating 1) treatment efficacy and side-effect data from a network meta-analysis of 301 randomized trials ( N = 219,277), 2) validated risk equations for type 2 diabetes complications, and 3) patient preferences around treatment (e.g., to avoid daily glucose testing). Data from participants with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003-2014, N = 1107) were used to explore variations in treatment recommendations and associated quality-adjusted life-years given different patient features.

RESULTS

Patients at the highest microvascular disease risk had glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists or basal insulin recommended as top choices, whereas those wanting to avoid an injected medication or daily glucose testing had sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors commonly recommended, and those with major cost concerns had sulfonylureas commonly recommended. By converting from the most common sulfonylurea treatment to the model-recommended treatment, NHANES participants were expected to save an average of 0.036 quality-adjusted life-years per person (about a half month) from 10 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Models can help integrate meta-analytic treatment effect estimates with individualized risk calculations and preferences, to aid personalized treatment selection.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes treatment: are they all the same?

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) are an important class of drugs with a well-established efficacy and safety profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Agents in this class are derived from either exendin-4 (a compound present in Gila monster venom) or modifications of human GLP-1 active fragment. Differences among these drugs in duration of action (ie, short-acting vs long-acting), effects on glycaemic control and weight loss, immunogenicity, tolerability profiles, and administration routes offer physicians several options when selecting the most appropriate agent for individual patients. Patient preference is also an important consideration. The aim of this review is to discuss the differences between and similarities of GLP-1 RAs currently approved for clinical use, focusing particularly on the properties characterising the single short-acting and long-acting GLP-1 RAs rather than on their individual efficacy and safety profiles. The primary pharmacodynamic difference between short-acting (ie, exenatide twice daily and lixisenatide) and long-acting (ie, albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, and semaglutide) GLP-1 RAs is that short-acting agents primarily delay gastric emptying (lowering postprandial glucose) and long-acting agents affect both fasting glucose (via enhanced glucose-dependent insulin secretion and reduced glucagon secretion in the fasting state) and postprandial glucose (via enhanced postprandial insulin secretion and inhibition of glucagon secretion). Other advantages of long-acting GLP-1 RAs include smaller fluctuations in plasma drug concentrations, improved gastrointestinal tolerability profiles, and simpler, more convenient administration schedules (once daily for liraglutide and once weekly for albiglutide, dulaglutide, the long-acting exenatide formulation, and semaglutide), which might improve treatment adherence and persistence.

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.

Assessing Rationality in Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: An Investigation into the Use of Dominance Tests

BACKGROUND

Dominance tests are often applied to test for the rationality in the choice behavior of participants in discrete choice experiments (DCEs).

OBJECTIVES

To examine how dominance tests have been implemented in recent DCE applications in health and discuss their theoretical and empirical interpretation.

METHODS

Health-related DCEs published in 2015 were reviewed for the inclusion of tests on choice behavior. For studies that implemented a dominance test, information on application and interpretation of the test was extracted. Authors were contacted for test choice sets and observed proportions of subjects who chose the dominated option. Coefficients corresponding to the choice set were extracted to estimate the expected probability of choosing the dominated option with a logistic model and compared with the observed proportion. The theoretical range of expected probabilities of possible dominance tests was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 112 health-related DCEs, 49% included at least one test for choice behavior; 28 studies (25%) included a dominance test. The proportion of subjects in each study who chose the dominated option ranged from 0% to 21%. In 46% of the studies, the dominance test led to the exclusion of participants. In the 15 choice sets that were analyzed, 2 had larger proportions of participants choosing the dominated option than expected (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although dominance tests are frequently applied in DCEs, there is no consensus on how to account for them in data analysis and interpretation. Comparison of expected and observed proportions of participants failing the test might be indicative of DCE quality.

Glycemic Efficacy, Weight Effects, and Safety of Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

This article provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). GLP-1 RAs stimulate pancreatic GLP-1 receptors, which increases insulin secretion, delays gastric emptying, and increases satiety. As a class, GLP-1 RAs lower A1c levels and have been associated with reductions in weight and blood pressure and reduced fluctuations in glucose levels, and they have a low risk of hypoglycemia. Exenatide extended release (ER) and dulaglutide monotherapy have shown similar or superior reductions in A1c and weight compared with various oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Semaglutide has been shown to reduce both A1c and body weight compared with placebo and, in head-to-head studies versus both exenatide ER and dulaglutide, showed greater reductions in A1c and body weight. Once-weekly GLP-1 RAs have also been evaluated as add-on therapy in the continuum of care for the treatment of T2DM in combination with a variety of background medications, including 1 or more OADs (metformin, sulfonylureas, and/or thiazolidinediones), basal insulin, and prandial insulin. Gastrointestinal adverse events (e.g., nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) are the most common side effects with once-weekly GLP-1 RAs. Rates of hypoglycemia, and especially major/severe hypoglycemia, are low with once-weekly GLP-1 RAs but, as expected, are higher when used in combination with sulfonylureas or insulin. These once-weekly GLP-1 RAs provide a safe and effective treatment option for patients with T2DM and may offer improved convenience and possibly greater adherence compared with daily GLP-1 RAs.

DISCLOSURES

This supplement was funded by Novo Nordisk. Handelsman reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; speaker fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and has served in advisory capacity to Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Intarcia, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Cannon reports speaker fees and owns stock in Novo Nordisk. Shannon reports consultant and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly Alliance. Schneider reports advisory board fees from Intarcia, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Wyne has nothing to disclose.

Patient perceptions of injection devices used with dulaglutide and liraglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Liraglutide and dulaglutide have demonstrated similar glycemic efficacy and safety. However, they differ in treatment administration and injection devices. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare patient perceptions of the injection devices used with liraglutide and dulaglutide.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide or dulaglutide were recruited from across the US. Patients completed the Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) to rate their current injection device. Patients who had experience with both treatments also completed the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ) to report preferences between the two devices. ANCOVAs were conducted to compare DID-EQ scores between dulaglutide and liraglutide patients, while controlling for covariates. Descriptive statistics are presented for preferences reported on the DID-PQ.

RESULTS

A total of 404 patients were recruited from 49 states (mean age = 60.7 years; 54.0% female; 204 liraglutide; 200 dulaglutide). Mean DID-EQ item scores for both treatments were high, ranging from 3.48 to 3.90 on a 4 point scale. ANCOVAs found significantly higher scores for dulaglutide than liraglutide on DID-EQ global items assessing ease of use (3.82 vs. 3.73, p = .040) and convenience (3.79 vs. 3.66, p = .004). Among the 58 patients who had used both devices, more patients reported a preference for the dulaglutide device than the liraglutide device on every item of the DID-PQ.

CONCLUSIONS

High DID-EQ scores indicate positive perceptions of both the liraglutide and dulaglutide injection devices. The dulaglutide device was associated with slightly higher scores for ease of use and convenience than the liraglutide device.

Reproducibility and Validity of a Questionnaire Measuring Treatment Burden on Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Diabetic Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ)

INTRODUCTION

To measure the burden of pharmacotherapy on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we developed the Diabetes Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ), a patient-administered questionnaire composed of 18 questions, and evaluated its reproducibility and validity.

METHODS

We enrolled 240 patients with T2DM under pharmacotherapy over 20 years of age at seven institutes in Japan. Their physicians filled out report forms on patient backgrounds, and the patients answered both the DTBQ and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). For evaluation of reproducibility, 48 of the enrolled subjects completed a 2nd DTBQ at home after leaving the medical institutes.

RESULTS

Statistical analyses were performed for two sets of subjects, the validity analysis set (N = 236) and the reproducibility analysis set (N = 47). Factor analysis found a simple structure in the DTBQ item scores using a three-factor model with varimax rotation; the three subscales were designated as "implementation burden", "flexibility burden", and "blood glucose control burden". All intraclass correlation coefficients for the subscale scores were 0.8 or higher, indicating high reproducibility. Negative correlations were observed between the DTSQ satisfaction score and the DTBQ subscale scores. Moreover, as the dosing frequency of diabetic medicines increased, the DTBQ total score (total burden score) also became higher. Likewise, expected associations were observed between patient backgrounds and DTSQ scores.

CONCLUSION

The DTBQ has adequate reproducibility and validity as a measurement scale for treatment burden on T2DM patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) 000026382.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly Japan.

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: clinical consequences and strategies for improvement

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications is often suboptimal in patients with type 2 diabetes, and this can contribute to poor glycemic control, increased hospitalization, and the development of diabetic complications. Reported adherence rates to antihyperglycemics vary widely among studies, and this may be related to differences in methodology for measuring adherence, patient populations, and other factors. Poor adherence may occur regardless of the specific regimen used and whether therapy is oral or injectable, and can be especially common in chronic, asymptomatic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. More convenient drug-administration regimens and advances in formulations and delivery devices are among strategies shown to improve adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy, especially for injectable therapy. This is exemplified by technological developments made in the drug class of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, which are a focus of this narrative review. Dulaglutide, albiglutide, and prolonged-release exenatide have an extended duration of action and can be administered once weekly, whereas such agents as liraglutide require once-daily administration. The convenience of once-weekly versus once-daily administration is associated with better adherence in real-world studies involving this class of agent. Moreover, provision of a user-friendly delivery device has been shown to overcome initial resistance to injectable therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that recent innovations in drug formulation (eg, ready-to-use formulations) and delivery systems (eg, single-dose prefilled pens and hidden, ready-attached needles) may be instrumental in encouraging patient acceptance. For physicians who aim to improve their patients' adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, it is thus important to consider the patient's therapeutic experience (treatment frequency, drug formulation, delivery device). Better adherence, powered by recent technological advances in the delivery of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, may thus lead to improved clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fail to achieve glycaemic control promptly after diagnosis and do not receive timely treatment intensification. This may be in part due to 'clinical inertia', defined as the failure of healthcare providers to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated. Physician-, patient- and healthcare-system-related factors all contribute to clinical inertia. However, decisions that appear to be clinical inertia may, in fact, be only 'apparent' clinical inertia and may reflect good clinical practice on behalf of the physician for a specific patient. Delay in treatment intensification can happen at all stages of treatment for people with T2DM, including prescription of lifestyle changes after diagnosis, introduction of pharmacological therapy, use of combination therapy where needed and initiation of insulin. Clinical inertia may contribute to people with T2DM living with suboptimal glycaemic control for many years, with dramatic consequences for the patient in terms of quality of life, morbidity and mortality, and for public health because of the huge costs associated with uncontrolled T2DM. Because multiple factors can lead to clinical inertia, potential solutions most likely require a combination of approaches involving fundamental changes in medical care. These could include the adoption of a person-centred model of care to account for the complex considerations influencing treatment decisions by patients and physicians. Better patient education about the progressive nature of T2DM and the risks inherent in long-term poor glycaemic control may also reinforce the need for regular treatment reviews, with intensification when required.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment Attributes Important to Injection-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multinational Preference Study

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) differ in efficacy, side effects, dosing frequency, and device-related attributes. This study assessed the relative importance of treatment-related attributes in influencing preferences for GLP-1RAs among injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Injection-naïve T2DM patients from five countries completed a Web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. Patients chose between hypothetical treatment profiles reflecting important and differentiating attributes of GLP-1RAs. Eight attributes were included: efficacy, side effects, device size, needle size, titration, preparation, evidence of long-term efficacy/safety, and dosing frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a conditional logit model to indicate the likelihood of choosing a treatment with a given attribute level versus a reference attribute level. The influence of individual attributes when considering full treatment profiles was examined using exenatide once weekly (QW) and liraglutide once daily (QD) as case examples.

RESULTS

A total of 1482 patients with T2DM completed the DCE survey. Side effects, efficacy, and dosing frequency were the three most important attributes influencing preferences; needle size, device size, and required preparation were least important. Total sample analysis indicated that a profile of GLP-1RA approximating exenatide QW (single pen) was preferred over a profile approximating liraglutide QD (OR 3.36; p < 0.001), when efficacy was assumed to be equal.

CONCLUSION

The most influential drivers of treatment preferences for a hypothetical GLP-RA profile were side effects, efficacy, and dosing frequency among injection-naïve T2DM patients. Preference elicitation can promote patient-centered care and inform new generations of T2DM treatments, which can lead to improved adherence and health outcomes.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment Attributes Important to Injection-Experienced Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Preference Study in Germany and the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the relative importance of treatment-related attributes in influencing patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) among injection-experienced type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Germany and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

T2DM patients experienced with injecting once-weekly (QW) exenatide or once-daily (QD) liraglutide completed an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey. Patients chose between hypothetical blinded treatment profiles reflecting attributes of GLP-1RAs. The DCE survey included eight attributes: efficacy, side effects, device size, needle size, titration, injection preparation, long-term efficacy/safety, and dosing frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a conditional logit model indicating the likelihood of choosing a treatment with a given attribute level versus a reference attribute level.

RESULTS

510 GLP-1RA injection-experienced patients completed the survey; 45.3% respondents were being treated with exenatide QW and 54.7% respondents were being treated with liraglutide QD. In terms of GLP-1RA attributes, patients indicated a preference for a treatment with greater efficacy (i.e., a 1.5-point improvement in HbA1c) (OR 2.58; 95% CI 2.37, 2.80; p < 0.001), fewer side effects (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.52, 2.82; p < 0.001), once-weekly rather than once-daily administration (OR 2.26; 95% CI 2.13, 2.39; p < 0.001), and the preparation required for a multi-use pen (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.55, 1.88; p < 0.001). Needle size, device size, and titration were not significant drivers of patient preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Among GLP-1RA injection-experienced patients, key drivers of treatment preference for a hypothetical GLP-RA profile were side effects, efficacy, dosing frequency, and required preparation. Understanding patient preferences is important for optimizing treatment decision-making and improving treatment adherence.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Novel antidiabetic medications for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Liver-related diseases are the leading causes of death in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is closely associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is the most prevalent chronic liver disease worldwide. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), a severe form of NAFLD, can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatic failure. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis can be called "diabetic hepatopathy". There are no established pharmacotherapies for NAFLD/NASH patients with T2DM. Although metformin is established as the first-line therapy for T2DM, given its relative safety and beneficial effects on glycosylated hemoglobin, weight, and cardiovascular mortality, this agent is not recommended as specific therapy for NASH/NAFLD due to lack of clinical evidence. The effects of pioglitazone on NASH histology with T2DM have been extensively proved, but several concerns exist, such as body weight gain, fluid retention, cancer incidence, and bone fracture. In recent years, novel antidiabetic medications have been approved for T2DM, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. A key clinical question for hepatologists is what kinds of antidiabetic medications are the most appropriate for the treatment of NAFLD accompanied by T2DM, to prevent progression of hepatic fibrosis resulting in HCC/liver-related mortality without increased risk of cardiovascular events. This review focuses on novel antidiabetic agents and future perspectives on the treatment of NAFLD/NASH with T2DM.

Evaluating preferences for profiles of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among injection-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Japan

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate patients' preferences for the treatment features, safety, and efficacy of two specific glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dulaglutide and liraglutide, among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan.

METHODS

In Japan, patients with self-reported T2DM and naive to treatment with self-injectable medications were administered a DCE through an in-person interview. The DCE examined the following six attributes of T2DM treatment, each described by two levels: "dosing frequency", "hemoglobin A1c change", "weight change", "type of delivery system", "frequency of nausea", and "frequency of hypoglycemia". Part-worth utilities were estimated using logit models and were used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each attribute. A chi-square test was used to determine the differences in preferences for the dulaglutide versus liraglutide profiles.

RESULTS

The final evaluable sample consisted of 182 participants (mean age: 58.9 [standard deviation =10.0] years; 64.3% male; mean body mass index: 26.1 [standard deviation =5.0] kg/m(2)). The RI values for the attributes in rank order were dosing frequency (44.1%), type of delivery system (26.3%), frequency of nausea (15.1%), frequency of hypoglycemia (7.4%), weight change (6.2%), and hemoglobin A1c change (1.0%). Significantly more participants preferred the dulaglutide profile (94.5%) compared to the liraglutide profile (5.5%; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study elicited the preferences of Japanese T2DM patients for attributes and levels representing the actual characteristics of two existing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. In this comparison, dosing frequency and type of delivery system were the two most important characteristics, accounting for >70% of the RI. These findings are similar to those of a previous UK study, providing information about patients' preferences that may be informative for patient-clinician treatment discussions.