Sonia Roldan Munoz1, Douwe Postmus2, Sieta T de Vries1, Arna H Arnardottir3, İlknur Dolu4, Hans Hillege2,5, Peter G M Mol1,5. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 3. Department of Pharmaceutical Safety and Efficacy, Dada Consultancy B.V., Nijmegen, Netherlands. 4. Faculty of Health Science, Bartin University, Bartın, Turkey. 5. Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the importance that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the Netherlands and Turkey attach to certain drug effects of oral anti-diabetic drugs. Methods: Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey containing demographic questions and a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for oral anti-diabetic drugs. Adults from the Netherlands and Turkey were included if they had type 2 diabetes mellitus and had received a prescription of an oral anti-diabetic drug in the last 4 months. The oral anti-diabetic drugs in the discrete choice experiment were described in terms of six attributes: effects on HbA1c, cardiovascular diseases, weight change, gastrointestinal adverse drug events hypoglycemic events, and bladder cancer. Multinomial logit models with country as an interaction factor were fitted. Results: In total, 381 patients were included, 199 from the Netherlands and 182 from Turkey. Patients' preferences toward drug effects varied between the countries. Turkish patients attached the highest importance to reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.51, 95% CI 0.45-0.55), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.16, 95% CI 0.11-0.22), and reducing gastrointestinal adverse drug events (relative weight: 0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.18). Patients from the Netherlands attached the highest importance to gastrointestinal ADEs (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.39), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.16-0.25), and reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). Conclusion: Patient preferences may differ across countries. Such differences should be acknowledged in regulatory decisions and clinical practice.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the importance that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the Netherlands and Turkey attach to certain drug effects of oral anti-diabetic drugs. Methods: Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey containing demographic questions and a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for oral anti-diabetic drugs. Adults from the Netherlands and Turkey were included if they had type 2 diabetes mellitus and had received a prescription of an oral anti-diabetic drug in the last 4 months. The oral anti-diabetic drugs in the discrete choice experiment were described in terms of six attributes: effects on HbA1c, cardiovascular diseases, weight change, gastrointestinal adverse drug events hypoglycemic events, and bladder cancer. Multinomial logit models with country as an interaction factor were fitted. Results: In total, 381 patients were included, 199 from the Netherlands and 182 from Turkey. Patients' preferences toward drug effects varied between the countries. Turkish patients attached the highest importance to reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.51, 95% CI 0.45-0.55), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.16, 95% CI 0.11-0.22), and reducing gastrointestinal adverse drug events (relative weight: 0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.18). Patients from the Netherlands attached the highest importance to gastrointestinal ADEs (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.39), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.16-0.25), and reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). Conclusion:Patient preferences may differ across countries. Such differences should be acknowledged in regulatory decisions and clinical practice.
Authors: Peter G M Mol; Arna H Arnardottir; Sabine M J Straus; Pieter A de Graeff; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Elise H Quik; Paul F M Krabbe; Petra Denig Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Barbara Bohn; Christof Schöfl; Vincent Zimmer; Michael Hummel; Nikolai Heise; Erhard Siegel; Wolfram Karges; Michaela Riedl; Reinhard W Holl Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 9.951