OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the preferences of people with diabetes for liraglutide vs other glucose lowering drugs, based on outcomes of clinical trials. METHODS: Willingness to pay (WTP) for diabetes drug treatment was assessed by combining results from a recent WTP study with analysis of results from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD) programme. The LEAD programme included six randomised clinical trials with 3967 participants analysing efficacy and safety of liraglutide 1.2 mg (LEAD 1-6 trials), rosiglitazone (LEAD 1 trial), glimepiride (LEAD 2-3 trials), insulin glargine (LEAD 5 trial), and exenatide (LEAD 6 trial). The WTP survey used discrete choice experimental (DCE) methodology to evaluate the convenience and clinical effects of glucose lowering treatments. RESULTS: People with type 2 diabetes were prepared to pay an extra €2.64/day for liraglutide compared with rosiglitazone, an extra €1.94/day compared with glimepiride, an extra €3.36/day compared with insulin glargine, and an extra €0.81/day compared with exenatide. Weight loss was the largest component of WTP for liraglutide compared with rosiglitazone, glimepiride, and insulin glargine. Differences in the administration of the two drugs was the largest component of WTP for liraglutide (once daily anytime) compared with exenatide (twice daily with meals). A limitation of the study was that it was based on six clinical trials where liraglutide was the test drug, but each trial had a different comparator, therefore the clinical effects of liraglutide were much better documented than the comparators. CONCLUSIONS: WTP analyses of the clinical results from the LEAD programme suggested that participants with type 2 diabetes were willing to pay appreciably more for liraglutide than other glucose lowering treatments. This was driven by the relative advantage of weight loss compared with rosiglitazone, glimepiride, and insulin glargine, and administration frequency compared with exenatide.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the preferences of people with diabetes for liraglutide vs other glucose lowering drugs, based on outcomes of clinical trials. METHODS: Willingness to pay (WTP) for diabetes drug treatment was assessed by combining results from a recent WTP study with analysis of results from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD) programme. The LEAD programme included six randomised clinical trials with 3967 participants analysing efficacy and safety of liraglutide 1.2 mg (LEAD 1-6 trials), rosiglitazone (LEAD 1 trial), glimepiride (LEAD 2-3 trials), insulin glargine (LEAD 5 trial), and exenatide (LEAD 6 trial). The WTP survey used discrete choice experimental (DCE) methodology to evaluate the convenience and clinical effects of glucose lowering treatments. RESULTS:People with type 2 diabetes were prepared to pay an extra €2.64/day for liraglutide compared with rosiglitazone, an extra €1.94/day compared with glimepiride, an extra €3.36/day compared with insulin glargine, and an extra €0.81/day compared with exenatide. Weight loss was the largest component of WTP for liraglutide compared with rosiglitazone, glimepiride, and insulin glargine. Differences in the administration of the two drugs was the largest component of WTP for liraglutide (once daily anytime) compared with exenatide (twice daily with meals). A limitation of the study was that it was based on six clinical trials where liraglutide was the test drug, but each trial had a different comparator, therefore the clinical effects of liraglutide were much better documented than the comparators. CONCLUSIONS: WTP analyses of the clinical results from the LEAD programme suggested that participants with type 2 diabetes were willing to pay appreciably more for liraglutide than other glucose lowering treatments. This was driven by the relative advantage of weight loss compared with rosiglitazone, glimepiride, and insulin glargine, and administration frequency compared with exenatide.
Authors: José Gerardo González-González; Alejandro Díaz González-Colmenero; Juan Manuel Millán-Alanís; Lyubov Lytvyn; Ricardo Cesar Solis; Reem A Mustafa; Suetonia C Palmer; Sheyu Li; Qiukui Hao; Neri Alejandro Alvarez-Villalobos; Per Olav Vandvik; René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: A Brett Hauber; Steven Han; Jui-Chen Yang; Ira Gantz; Kaan Tunceli; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; Kimberly Brodovicz; Charles M Alexander; Michael Davies; Kristy Iglay; Qiaoyi Zhang; Larry Radican Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Katie D Stewart; Joseph A Johnston; Louis S Matza; Sarah E Curtis; Henry A Havel; Stephanie A Sweetana; Heather L Gelhorn Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Vladislav A Zykov; Taisiia P Tuchina; Denis A Lebedev; Irina B Krylova; Alina Y Babenko; Elvira V Kuleshova; Elena N Grineva; Alekber A Bayramov; Michael M Galagudza Journal: World J Diabetes Date: 2018-09-15