ObjectiveTo use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate preferences for the actual treatment features and overall profiles of two injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (dulaglutide and liraglutide) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the UK.MethodsIn-person interviews were conducted in the UK to administer a DCE to patients with self-reported T2DM, naïve to treatment with injectable medications. The DCE examined 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 random effects logit models and were used to calculate relative importance (RI) values for each attribute. A chi-square test was used to determine differences in preferences for dulaglutide versus liraglutide profiles.ResultsA total of 243 participants [mean age: 60.5 (standard deviation 10.9) years; 76.1% male; mean body mass index: 29.8 (standard deviation 5.4) kg/m2] completed the study. RI values for the attributes in rank order were: “dosing frequency” (41.6%), “type of delivery system” (35.5%), “frequency of nausea” (10.4%), “weight change” (5.9%), “hemoglobin A1c change” (3.6%), and “frequency of hypoglycemia” (3.0%). Significantly more participants preferred the dulaglutide profile (83.1%) compared with the liraglutide profile (16.9%; P<0.0001).ConclusionThis study elicited patients’ preferences for attributes and levels representing the actual characteristics of two specific glucagon-like peptide-1 medications. In this context, dosing frequency and type of delivery system were most important, accounting for over 75% of the RI. While previous studies have identified efficacy as highly important in T2DM medication decisions, this study suggests that when differences in efficacy between medications are small, other treatment features (eg, dosing frequency and delivery system) are of much greater importance to patients.

BackgroundCost-utility models are frequently used to compare treatments intended to prevent or delay the onset of cardiovascular events. Most published utilities represent post-event health states without incorporating the disutility of the event or reporting the time between the event and utility assessment. Therefore, this study estimated health state utilities representing cardiovascular conditions while distinguishing between acute impact including the cardiovascular event and the chronic post-event impact.MethodsHealth states were drafted and refined based on literature review, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. Three cardiovascular conditions were described: stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and heart failure. One-year acute health states represented the event and its immediate impact, and post-event health states represented chronic impact. UK general population respondents valued the health states in time trade-off tasks with time horizons of one year for acute states and ten years for chronic states.ResultsA total of 200 participants completed interviews (55% female; mean age = 46.6 y). Among acute health states, stroke had the lowest utility (0.33), followed by heart failure (0.60) and ACS (0.67). Utility scores for chronic health states followed the same pattern: stroke (0.52), heart failure (0.57), and ACS (0.82). For stroke and ACS, acute utilities were significantly lower than chronic post-event utilities (difference = 0.20 and 0.15, respectively; both p < 0.0001).ConclusionsResults add to previously published utilities for cardiovascular events by distinguishing between chronic post-event health states and acute health states that include the event and its immediate impact. Findings suggest that acute versus chronic impact should be considered when selecting scores for use in cost-utility models. Thus, the current utilities provide a unique option that may be used to represent the acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular conditions in economic models comparing treatments that may delay or prevent the onset of cardiovascular events.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0772-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are often recommended as part of combination therapy for type 2 diabetes when oral medication does not result in sufficient glycemic control. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are available as weekly injections. These medications vary in their injection delivery systems, and these differences could impact quality of life and treatment preference. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with attributes of injection delivery systems for weekly GLP-1 therapies.MethodsParticipants with type 2 diabetes in the UK valued health states in time trade-off interviews. The health states (drafted based on literature, device instructions for use, and clinician interviews) had identical descriptions of type 2 diabetes, but differed in description of the treatment process. One health state described oral treatment, while six others described oral treatment plus a weekly injection. The injection health states varied in three aspects of the treatment administration process: requirements for reconstituting the medication (i.e., mixing the medication prior to the injection), waiting during medication preparation, and needle handling. Every participant valued all seven health states.ResultsA total of 209 participants completed interviews (57.4% male; mean age = 60.4y). The mean utility of the oral treatment health state was 0.89. All injection health states had significantly (p < 0.01) lower utilities ranging from 0.86 to 0.88. Differences among health state utilities suggest that each administration requirement had a small but measureable disutility: -0.004 (reconstitution), -0.004 (needle handling), -0.010 (reconstitution, needle handling), and -0.020 (reconstitution, waiting, needle handling).ConclusionsFindings suggest it is feasible to use the TTO method to quantify preferences among injection treatment processes. It may be useful to incorporate these utility differences into cost-utility models comparing weekly injectable treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes.

The flash glucose monitoring system was associated with a significantly greater utility than the conventional monitoring system. This difference may be useful in cost-utility models comparing the value of glucose monitoring devices for patients with diabetes. This study adds to the literature on treatment process utilities, suggesting that time trade-off methods may be used to quantify preferences among medical devices.

IntroductionPatients with bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs). Although cost-utility models are used to examine treatments for metastatic cancer, limited information is available on utilities of SREs. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disutility of four SREs: spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, radiation to bone, and surgery performed to stabilize a bone.MethodsGeneral population participants from the UK and Canada completed time trade-off (TTO) interviews to assess the utility of health states drafted based on literature review, clinician interviews, and patient interviews. Respondents first rated a health state describing cancer with bone metastases. Then, the SREs were added to this health state.ResultsInterviews were completed with 187 participants (50.8 % male, 80.2 % white). Cancer with bone metastases without an SRE had a mean utility of 0.47 (SD = 0.43) on a standard utility scale (1 = full health, 0 = death). Of the SREs, spinal cord compression was associated with the greatest disutility (i.e., the utility decrease): −0.32 with paralysis and −0.22 without paralysis. Surgery had a disutility of −0.07. Leg, arm, and rib fractures had disutilities of −0.06, −0.04, and −0.03. Two weeks of daily radiation treatment had a disutility of −0.06, while two radiation appointments had the smallest impact on utility (−0.02).ConclusionAll SREs were associated with statistically significant utility decreases, suggesting a perceived impact on quality of life beyond the impact of cancer with bone metastases. The resulting disutilities may be used in cost-utility models examining treatments to prevent SREs secondary to bone metastases.