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

Qin, Lei; Chen, Stephanie; Flood, Emuella; Shaunik, Alka; Romero, Beverly; Cruz, Marie de la; Alvarez, Cynthia; Grandy, Susan

doi:10.1007/s13300-017-0237-8

Cited by 27 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the ten records included, eight studies had compared patient preferences between different GLP1 RA-attribute profiles,12,15,18–23 one had compared a GLP1 RA versus insulin-glargine profile,17 and one compared patient preference among GLP1 RA profiles and between a GLP1 RA versus insulin-glargine profile 24. Results for GLP1 RA versus GLP1 RA-attribute comparisons and GLP1 RA versus insulin glargine-attribute comparisons are summarized separately.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor–agonist treatment attributes</p>

Thieu

Robinson

Kennedy-Martin

et al. 2019

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies were multinational. DCEs were employed for preference elicitation in six studies,15,17–20,23 two studies used TTO,12,21 one reported a DCE with WTP,24 and one study used both TTO and DCE 22. Sample sizes ranged from 182 to 1,482 participants, and all studies included adults with T2DM.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor–agonist treatment attributes</p>

Thieu

Robinson

Kennedy-Martin

et al. 2019

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People with type 2 diabetes typically report a preference for oral medications over injections, and, where injectable medications are required, a preference for non‐insulin injectables and regimens which require fewer injections . Nonetheless, delayed uptake and problematic medication‐taking behaviours are observed across diabetes medicines administered both orally and via injection.…”

Section: What Have the Past 25 Years Of Research Told Us?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychosocial aspects and contributions of behavioural science to medication‐taking for adults with type 2 diabetes

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this narrative review was to determine the contribution of behavioural and psychosocial research to the field of medication‐taking for adults with type 2 diabetes over the past 25 years. We review the behavioural and psychosocial literature relevant to adults with type 2 diabetes who are treated with oral antidiabetes agents, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists and insulin. Delayed uptake of, omission of and non‐persistence with medications are significant problems among adults with type 2 diabetes. At each stage of the course of diabetes, during which medication to lower blood glucose is initiated or intensified, ~50% of people take less medication than prescribed. Research aimed at increasing optimal medication‐taking behaviour has targeted ‘forgetfulness’, developing interventions which aid medication‐taking, such as reminder devices, with limited success. In parallel, investigation of beliefs about medication has provided insights into the perceived necessity of and concerns about medication and how these inform medication‐taking decisions. Guidance is available for health professionals to facilitate shared decision‐making, particularly with insulin therapy; however, interventions addressing medication beliefs are limited. Optimal medication‐taking behaviour is essential to prevent hyperglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes. Evidence from the past 25 years has demonstrated the association between medication beliefs and medication‐taking behaviour. Health professionals need to address medication concerns, and establish and demonstrate the utility of diabetes medication with the individual within the clinical consultation. There are interventions that may assist diabetes health professionals in the shared decision‐making process, but further development and more robust evaluation of these tools and techniques is required.

show abstract

“…The 18 applied DCEs addressing understanding in the pretesting phase all used the concept of understanding as a way to modify or revise the DCE instrument before final roll out [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. Most used pretesting to test or confirm understanding in relation to the terminology of attributes and medical concepts.…”

Section: Applied Dces Addressing Understanding In the Pretesting Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Pearce

Harrison

Watson

et al. 2020

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Despite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how 'understanding' is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context. Objectives Our aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used. Methods Searches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study. Results Of 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents' engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent. Conclusions Those conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

show abstract

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

Cited by 27 publications

References 55 publications

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor–agonist treatment attributes</p>

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor–agonist treatment attributes</p>

Psychosocial aspects and contributions of behavioural science to medication‐taking for adults with type 2 diabetes

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

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

Cited by 27 publications

References 55 publications

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor&ndash;agonist treatment attributes</p>

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor&ndash;agonist treatment attributes</p>

Psychosocial aspects and contributions of behavioural science to medication‐taking for adults with type 2 diabetes

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor–agonist treatment attributes</p>

<p>Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor–agonist treatment attributes</p>