Dataset Information

Patients' preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications: The REVISE study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To understand patient preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medication administration profiles, and reasons for their preferences.

Materials and methods

The REVISE study, a cross-sectional online survey of 600 participants with T2DM (United Kingdom, n = 300; United States, n = 300), elicited general preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications, and reasons for the preference. Participants then viewed two videos describing the administration procedures for injectable dulaglutide and oral semaglutide, based on the product instructions for use. Thereafter, participants indicated their preference for a once-weekly injectable or a once-daily oral medication based on the video descriptions. Participants who switched preferences were asked to identify the reasons influencing their decision.

Results

The participants were predominantly male (n = 349; 58.2%), with a mean (SD) age of 64 (11.3) years. Nearly all (n = 557; 92.8%) were taking an oral T2DM medication, and 158 (26.3%) were using an injectable. Initially, 76.5% (n = 459; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73.1-79.9) preferred a once-daily oral and 23.5% a once-weekly injectable (n = 141; 95% CI 20.1-26.9; P?ConclusionSeveral treatment-related characteristics, including route, frequency and complexity of the treatment, play a role in patients' preferences for T2DM treatments and should be considered during treatment selection.

SUBMITTER: Boye K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7839441 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications: The REVISE study.

Boye Kristina K Ross Melissa M Mody Reema R Konig Manige M Gelhorn Heather H

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20201213 2

<h4>Aims</h4>To understand patient preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medication administration profiles, and reasons for their preferences.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The REVISE study, a cross-sectional online survey of 600 participants with T2DM (United Kingdom, n = 300; United States, n = 300), elicited general preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications, and reasons for the preference. Partici ...[more]

PMID: 33140575

Similar Datasets

Project description:Diabetes is associated with a higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. To improve the health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommended target goals for the improvement of glycemic control and the reduction of cardiovascular risk factors associated with the disease. This retrospective analysis calculated the absolute benefit increase (ABI) of using exenatide once weekly (QW), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, vs an oral glucose-lowering medication or insulin glargine to achieve ADA-recommended goals. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve these goals was also calculated and provides a useful clinical metric for comparing potential therapies from different drug classes.Patient data from three double-blind or open label, 26-week, randomized, controlled trials were retrospectively analyzed separately. ABI and NNT were calculated by comparing the percentage of patients treated with exenatide QW (N = 641) vs metformin (N = 246), sitagliptin (N = 329), pioglitazone (N = 328), or insulin glargine (N = 223), who achieved a single glycemic, weight, blood pressure, or lipid goal or a composite of these recommended goals, during the DURATION-2, -3, and -4 clinical trials.Significant ABIs favoring exenatide QW over all four glucose-lowering medications were observed for at least one HbA1c glycemic goal. NNTs of 4 and 5 were calculated when exenatide QW was compared to sitagliptin for attaining HbA1c goals of <7.0% and ?6.5%, respectively. Additionally, significantly more patients using exenatide QW compared to sitagliptin, pioglitazone, or insulin glargine attained the composite goal of HbA1c <7% or ?6.5%, without weight gain or hypoglycemia. Exenatide QW was also favored over sitagliptin and insulin glargine for the achievement of the composite goals of HbA1c <7% (or ?6.5%), systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein <2.59 mmol/L. For most goals, exenatide QW and metformin had similar effects in treatment naïve patients.This analysis assessed the between-therapy differences in achieving therapeutic goals with therapies commonly used for glycemic control in patients with T2DM. In clinical trials, exenatide QW assisted more patients in reaching the majority of ADA-recommended therapeutic goals than treatment with sitagliptin, pioglitazone, or insulin glargine.NCT00637273, NCT00641056, NCT00676338.

Project description:IntroductionOnce-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that has demonstrated significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the GLP-1 RA once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg in the SUSTAIN 10 trial. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg from a UK healthcare payer perspective.MethodsLong-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0), with baseline characteristics and treatment effects sourced from SUSTAIN 10. Patients were assumed to initiate treatment with GLP-1 RAs and continue treatment until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, at which point GLP-1 RAs were discontinued and basal insulin was initiated. Pharmacy costs and costs of complications were measured in 2018 pounds sterling (GBP), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Utilities were taken from published sources.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with an increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.21 years and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.30 quality-adjusted life-years, compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 140 per patient with semaglutide versus liraglutide, owing to a reduction in diabetes-related complications, in particular cardiovascular disease (mean cost saving of GBP 279 per patient). Therefore, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was dominant compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar, demonstrating the robustness of the base-case analysis.ConclusionsOnce-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg, based on the SUSTAIN 10 trial, from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disease with substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic impacts. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as once-daily (QD) liraglutide and once-weekly (QW) exenatide, are FDA-approved treatment for T2DM. Head-to-head trials and meta-analyses comparing these agents have reported clinically meaningful improvements but small differences in glycemic control between both agents. In this study, we calculate and compare the cost-effectiveness implications of these alternative effectiveness outcomes.MethodsWe developed a decision model to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide QW 2 mg versus liraglutide QD 1.8 mg in T2DM patients, with effectiveness measured as reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). In the base case, the model tracks change in HbA1c and direct medical expenditure over a 6-month time horizon. We calculated and compared the cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of models populated with clinical data from a head-to-head randomized, controlled trial (DURATION-6) and a network meta-analysis. Expenditure inputs were derived from wholesale acquisition costs and published sources.ResultsIn the base case, 6-month expenditure for the liraglutide and exenatide strategies were $3,509 and $2,618, respectively. Using clinical data from DURATION-6 and the network meta-analysis, the liraglutide strategy had an incremental cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of $4,773 and $27,179, respectively. The most influential model parameters were drug costs, magnitude of HbA1c reduction in patients on treatment for >1 month, and liraglutide gastrointestinal adverse event rate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using DURATION-6 data, the exenatide strategy was optimal at willingness-to-pay levels below $4,800 per 1% reduction in HbA1c. In a PSA using meta-analysis data, the exenatide strategy was dominant.ConclusionsOur modeled results demonstrate that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide QD 1.8 mg relative to exenatide QW 2 mg depend largely on the chosen source of the clinical data.

Dataset Information

Patients' preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications: The REVISE study.

Aims

Materials and methods

Results

Publications

Patients' preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications: The REVISE study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets