Giulio Marchesini1,2, Patrizio Pasqualetti3, Roberto Anichini4, Salvatore Caputo5, Giuseppe Memoli6, Paola Ponzani7, Veronica Resi8, Manfredi Rizzo9, Gaetano Serviddio10, Giorgio Zanette11. 1. SSD Malattie del Metabolismo e Dietetica Clinica, Università "Alma Mater", Bologna, Italy. giulio.marchesini@unibo.it. 2. Department of Medical & Surgical Sciences, "Alma Mater" University, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti, 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. giulio.marchesini@unibo.it. 3. Fondazione Fatebenefratelli per la Ricerca e la Formazione Sanitaria e Sociale, Rome, Italy. 4. Sezione Autonoma di Diabetologia e Malattie Metaboliche, Presidio Ospedaliero di Pistoia, Pistoia, Italy. 5. Servizio di Diabetologia, Policlinico Gemelli, Università Cattolica, Rome, Italy. 6. Centro di Diabetologia "San Luca", Ariano Irpino (AV), Italy. 7. UO di Diabetologia, Ospedale La Colletta, Arenzano (GE), Italy. 8. Servizio di Diabetologia, UO Endocrinologia e Malattie Metaboliche, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda-Ospedale Maggiore, Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 9. Dipartimento Biomedico di Medicina Interna e Specialistica, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 10. Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Centro Universitario per la Ricerca e la Cura delle Epatopatie (CURE), Foggia, Italy. 11. SSD di Diabetologia, Azienda Ospedaliera, Pordenone, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS: Several drug classes are now available to achieve a satisfactory metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), but patients' preferences may differ. METHODS: In a discrete-choice experiment, we tested T2DM patients' preferences for recent antidiabetic drugs, in the event that their treatment might require intensification. The following attributes were considered: (a) route of administration; (b) type of delivery; (c) timing; (d) risk of adverse events; (e) effects on body weight. Twenty-two possible scenarios were built, transferred into 192 paired choices and proposed to 491 cases naïve to injectable treatments and 171 treated by GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). Analyses were performed by descriptive statistics and random effects logit regression model. RESULTS: Preferences according to dosing frequency, risk of nausea and urinary tract infections (UTls) were similar across groups, age, sex and BMI. Administration route and delivery type accounted for 1/3 of relative importance; the risk of UTIs, nausea and dosing frequency for ≈ 20% each, and weight loss for only 6%. Two significant interactions emerged (p < 0.01): type of delivery × group, and weight change × BMI class. Irrespective of previous treatment, the three preferred choices were injectable, coupled with weekly dosing and a ready-to-use device (first two choices). In a regression model, being naïve or non-naïve changed the ranking of preferences (p < 0.001), and the order was systematically shifted towards injectable medications in non-naïve subjects. CONCLUSION: Easy-to-deliver, injectable treatment is preferred in T2DM, independently of treatment history, and previous experience with GLP-1RAs strengthens patients' willingness to accept injectable drugs.
AIMS: Several drug classes are now available to achieve a satisfactory metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), but patients' preferences may differ. METHODS: In a discrete-choice experiment, we tested T2DM patients' preferences for recent antidiabetic drugs, in the event that their treatment might require intensification. The following attributes were considered: (a) route of administration; (b) type of delivery; (c) timing; (d) risk of adverse events; (e) effects on body weight. Twenty-two possible scenarios were built, transferred into 192 paired choices and proposed to 491 cases naïve to injectable treatments and 171 treated by GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). Analyses were performed by descriptive statistics and random effects logit regression model. RESULTS: Preferences according to dosing frequency, risk of nausea and urinary tract infections (UTls) were similar across groups, age, sex and BMI. Administration route and delivery type accounted for 1/3 of relative importance; the risk of UTIs, nausea and dosing frequency for ≈ 20% each, and weight loss for only 6%. Two significant interactions emerged (p < 0.01): type of delivery × group, and weight change × BMI class. Irrespective of previous treatment, the three preferred choices were injectable, coupled with weekly dosing and a ready-to-use device (first two choices). In a regression model, being naïve or non-naïve changed the ranking of preferences (p < 0.001), and the order was systematically shifted towards injectable medications in non-naïve subjects. CONCLUSION: Easy-to-deliver, injectable treatment is preferred in T2DM, independently of treatment history, and previous experience with GLP-1RAs strengthens patients' willingness to accept injectable drugs.
Authors: José Esteban Costa Gil; Juan Carlos Garnica Cuéllar; Paula Perez Terns; Aldo Ferreira-Hermosillo; José Antonio Cetina Canto; Ángel Alfonso Garduño Perez; Pedro Mendoza Martínez; Lucas Rista; Alejandro Sosa-Caballero; Estefanía Vázquez-Mendez; Luis Fernando Tejado Gallegos; Hungta Chen; Agustina Elizalde; Virginia B Tomatis Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 2.314
Authors: Sonia Roldan Munoz; Douwe Postmus; Sieta T de Vries; Arna H Arnardottir; İlknur Dolu; Hans Hillege; Peter G M Mol Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Hiba El Masri; Treasure M McGuire; Mieke L van Driel; Helen Benham; Samantha A Hollingworth Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 2.314