Literature DB >> 26682548

What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences.

Axel Mühlbacher1,2, Susanne Bethge3.   

Abstract

AIMS: The aim of this empirical study is to evaluate patient preferences for different characteristics of oral type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment. As T2DM treatment requires strict adherence, patient needs and preferences should be taken into consideration.
METHODS: Based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was applied to identify patient preferences. Apart from six identical attributes (adjustment of glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], prevention of hypoglycemia, risk of genital infection, risk of gastrointestinal problems, risk of urinary tract infection, and weight change), one continuous variable of either "additional healthy life years" (AHY) or "additional costs" attribute (AC) was included. The DCE was conducted using a fractional factorial design, and the statistical data analysis used random effect logit models.
RESULTS: In total, N = 626 (N = 318 AHY + N = 308 AC) T2DM patients participated in the survey. The estimation revealed a clear dominance for prevention of hypoglycemia (coefficient 0.937) and adjustment of HbA1c (coefficient 0.541). The attributes, "additional healthy life years" (coefficient 0.458) or "additional costs" (coefficient 0.420), were in the middle rank and both of significant impact. The side effects, risk of genital infection (coefficient 0.301), risk of gastrointestinal problems (coefficient 0.296), and risk of urinary tract infection (coefficient 0.241) followed in this respective order. Possible weight change (coefficient 0.047) was of less importance (last rank) to the patients in this evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: These survey results demonstrate how much a (hypothetical) T2DM oral treatment characteristic affects the treatment decision. The preference data can be used for risk-benefit assessment, cost-benefit assessment, and the establishment of patient-oriented evidence. Understanding how patients perceive and value different aspects of diabetes oral treatment is vital to the optimal design and evaluation of treatment options. The present results can be an additional source of information for design, assessment, and decision in T2DM treatment regimes. As such, more effective and efficient care of patients can be achieved, thereby increasing adherence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Discrete choice experiment; Oral treatment; Patient preferences; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26682548     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-015-0750-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  22 in total

Review 1.  [Consequences of the German AMNOG for the identification of study objectives to demonstrate clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of innovative drugs].

Authors:  D Götte
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 0.628

2.  Why not ask?: measuring patient preferences for healthcare decision making.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  The dilemma between efficacy as defined by regulatory bodies and effectiveness in clinical practice.

Authors:  Gerd Glaeske
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 5.  [Patients' preferences in the medicamentous treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2: A systematic classification and meta-comparison of patient preference studies].

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; A Kaczynski
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.513

6.  Avoidance of weight gain is important for oral type 2 diabetes treatments in Sweden and Germany: patient preferences.

Authors:  A F Mohamed; J Zhang; F R Johnson; I Duprat Lomon; E Malvolti; R Townsend; C J Ostgren; K G Parhofer
Journal:  Diabetes Metab       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 6.041

7.  [Costs of diabetes care and treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients treated with a basal-bolus (ICT) insulin regimen in outpatient care: results of the LIVE-COM study].

Authors:  Ralph Achim Bierwirth; Thomas Kohlmann; Jörn Moock; Rolf Holle; Wolfgang Landgraf
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  2010-12-07

8.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Measurement characteristics of the pediatric asthma health outcome measure.

Authors:  Joe K Gerald; Leslie A McClure; Kathy F Harrington; Teri Moore; Ana Celia Hernández-Martínez; Lynn B Gerald
Journal:  J Asthma       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 2.515

Review 10.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Mandy Ryan; Karen Gerard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-19       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  16 in total

1.  Risk Factors for Severe Hypoglycemia in Black and White Adults With Diabetes: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.

Authors:  Alexandra K Lee; Clare J Lee; Elbert S Huang; A Richey Sharrett; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 19.112

2.  Investigating patients' preferences for new anti-diabetic drugs to inform public health insurance coverage decisions: a discrete choice experiment in China.

Authors:  Jinsong Geng; Haini Bao; Zhe Feng; Jingyi Meng; Xiaolan Yu; Hao Yu
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 4.135

3.  Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Australia: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Akram Ahmad; Muhammad Umair Khan; Parisa Aslani
Journal:  J Diabetes Metab Disord       Date:  2022-01-27

4.  A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Jodi B Segal; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  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.

Authors:  Lei Qin; Stephanie Chen; Emuella Flood; Alka Shaunik; Beverly Romero; Marie de la Cruz; Cynthia Alvarez; Susan Grandy
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 2.945

6.  Quantified patient preferences for lifestyle intervention programs for diabetes prevention-a protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Charalabos-Markos Dintsios; Nadja Chernyak; Benjamin Grehl; Andrea Icks
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2018-11-29

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

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Patient and physician preferences for type 2 diabetes medications: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mahdi Toroski; Abbas Kebriaeezadeh; Alireza Esteghamati; Ali Kazemi Karyani; Hadi Abbasian; Shekoufeh Nikfar
Journal:  J Diabetes Metab Disord       Date:  2019-11-11

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

Authors:  Heather L Gelhorn; Elizabeth D Bacci; Jiat Ling Poon; Kristina S Boye; Shuichi Suzuki; Steven M Babineaux
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 2.711

10.  Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rosanne Janssens; Isabelle Huys; Eline van Overbeeke; Chiara Whichello; Sarah Harding; Jürgen Kübler; Juhaeri Juhaeri; Antonio Ciaglia; Steven Simoens; Hilde Stevens; Meredith Smith; Bennett Levitan; Irina Cleemput; Esther de Bekker-Grob; Jorien Veldwijk
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.