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

Outcomes and Attributes Patients Value When Choosing Glucose-Lowering Medications: A Mixed-Methods Study

This mixed-methods study sought to identify pharmacotherapy preferences among 40 noninsulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes receiving care at two U.S. health care systems. Participants ranked by relative importance various health outcomes and medication attributes and then contextualized their rankings. Most participants ranked blindness (63%), death (60%), heart attack (48%), and heart failure (48%) as the most important health outcomes and glucose-lowering efficacy (68%) as the most important medication attribute, followed by oral administration (45%) and lack of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

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.

Preferences for Anaemia Treatment Attributes among Patients with Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease

INTRODUCTION

Information about patient preferences for the treatment of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is scarce. Hence, our aim was to examine how patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD valued attributes of alternative hypothetical anaemia treatments.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in adult patients who reported a clinical diagnosis of CKD-related anaemia. Treatment attributes included mode and frequency of administration, need for iron supplementation, risk of gastrointestinal side effects, risk of major cardiovascular events and impact on energy levels (as defined by the vitality section of the SF-6D health index). Logit models were used to analyse patients' preferences.

RESULTS

The DCE was completed by 200 patients in four countries. Patients preferred an oral mode of administration. Patients were willing to tolerate a 5.1% (95% CI 2.0-8.3%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event and an 11.7% (95% CI 5.0-18.5%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects to switch from an at-home subcutaneous injection administered once every 2 weeks to an at-home oral pill administered three times a week. Patients were willing to tolerate a 20.3% (95% CI 15.0-25.6%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and an 8.9% (95% CI 6.1-11.7%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event to transition from 'Sometimes having a lot of energy' to 'Always having a lot of energy'.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD-related anaemia demonstrated clear treatment preferences and were willing to accept increased gastrointestinal or cardiovascular risks in exchange for more energy or an oral treatment.

The effect of liraglutide on renal function in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Introduction

The efficacy of liraglutide on renal function in type 2 diabetes remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of liraglutide versus placebo on renal function in type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through March 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of liraglutide versus placebo on renal function in type 2 diabetes. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

Results

Seven RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group in type 2 diabetes, liraglutide treatment shows no obvious effect on GFR (SMD=0.02; 95% CI=-0.43 to 0.47; P=0.94), RBF (SMD=-0.28; 95% CI=-0.80 to 0.24; P=0.29) or death (RR=1.93; 95% CI=0.71 to 5.21; P=0.20), but is associated with significantly decreased ACR (SMD=-0.82; 95% CI=-1.39 to -0.26; P=0.004) and systolic blood pressure (MD=-9.60; 95% CI=-17.46 to -1.73; P=0.02), as well as increased heart rate (MD=5.39; 95% CI=3.26 to 7.52; P<0.00001).

Conclusions

Liraglutide treatment may provide some benefits for protecting renal function in type 2 diabetes.

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.

Patient Preferences for Diabetes Treatment Among People With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

Preferences for diabetes treatment-related attributes may be significant in diabetes management. However, there is a lack of evidence on patient preferences for diabetes in China.

Methods

A large-scale questionnaire survey was conducted in the hospitals of mainland China. Participants' preferences for six attributes were evaluated via a discrete choice experiment (DCE) using the conditional logit model. Patients' willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute was calculated based on the cost attribute.

Results

The sample consisted of 709 patients (male 51.9%; female 48.1%). The results of the model indicated that patients' preference weight (PW) of days on which the blood glucose level is under control per week was the highest (1.41), and the PW of blood glucose monitoring frequency was the lowest (0.642). Patients were generally willing to pay for improvements in their type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment, and they had relatively higher WTP to avoid the blood glucose level within a normal value of 1 day/week (¥176.01) and also to avoid the frequency of hypoglycemic events within the range of 1–2/month (¥144.53).

Conclusion

The number of days on which the blood glucose level is under control per week is the most important attribute in the treatment choice for patients with T2DM in China, followed by the frequency of hypoglycemic events, medication regimen, weight change, and blood glucose monitoring.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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.

Reporting Quality of Marginal Rates of Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments That Elicit Patient Preferences

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences as marginal rates of substitution (MRSs) between treatment or health service attributes. Because these studies are increasing in importance, it is vital that uncertainty around MRS estimates is reported.

OBJECTIVE

To review recently published DCE studies that elicit patient preferences in relation to MRS reporting and to explore the accuracy of using other reported information to estimate the uncertainty of the MRSs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of DCEs conducted with patients between 2014 and July 2019 was performed. The number of studies reporting coefficients, MRSs, standard errors (SEs), and confidence intervals was recorded. If all information was reported, studies were included in an analysis to determine the impact of estimating the SEs of MRSs using coefficients and assuming zero covariance, to determine the impact of this assumption.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-two patient DCEs were identified in the review; 34.1% (n = 79) reported 1 or more MRS and, of these, only 62.0% (n = 49) provided an estimate of the uncertainty. Of these studies, 16 contained enough information for inclusion in the analysis, providing 116 datapoints. Actual SEs were smaller than estimated SEs in 75.0% of cases (n = 87), and estimated SEs were within 25% of the actual SE in 59.5% of cases (n = 69).

CONCLUSION

Uncertainty of MRS estimates is unreported in a substantial proportion of recently published DCE studies. Estimating the SE of a MRS by solely using the SEs of the utility coefficients is likely to lead to biased estimates of the precision of patient trade-offs.

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.