Dataset Information

Patient Perceptions of and Preferences Between Characteristics of Injectable Diabetes Treatments.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The administration of medications targeting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) has evolved over time. As injection delivery systems continue to evolve, it is necessary to understand patients' perceptions of currently available treatments. The objective of this study was to examine the patient perspective of injectable treatment for T2D and identify characteristics of these treatments that are most important to patients.

Methods

Data were collected via an online survey study with a sample of individuals in the UK and US who were treated for T2D with injectable medication. The survey was designed to elicit perceptions of the treatment process for injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and insulin.

Results

The sample included 504 participants (251 UK, 253 US). Approximately half (50.4%) were treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and half (49.6%) were treated with insulin. Respondents were presented with a list of 17 characteristics of injectable medication and asked to indicate which were most important to them. Respondents most frequently selected confidence in administering the correct dose (n = 300, 59.5%); ease of selecting the correct dose (n = 268, 53.2%); overall ease of using the injection device (n = 239, 47.4%); frequency of injections (n = 223, 44.2%); and ease of carrying the device when necessary to inject away from home (n = 190, 37.7%). Characteristics least frequently cited as important included dose escalation (n = 79, 15.7%); handling the needle (n = 74, 14.7%); connectivity to an electronic device (n = 70, 13.9%); and the time required to prepare and inject each dose (n = 62, 12.3%).

Conclusion

Results of this survey suggest that patients prioritize some attributes of injectable treatments over others. These findings may have implications for clinical practice and development of injection devices.

SUBMITTER: Boye KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8385031 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the relative importance of features of a hypothetical injectable disease-modifying treatment for patients with multiple sclerosis using a discrete-choice experiment.MethodsGerman residents at least 18 years of age with a self-reported physician diagnosis of multiple sclerosis completed a 25-30 minute online discrete-choice experiment. Patients were asked to choose one of two hypothetical injectable treatments for multiple sclerosis, defined by different levels of six attributes (disability progression, the number of relapses in the next 4 years, injection time, frequency of injections, presence of flu-like symptoms, and presence of injection-site reactions). The data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model.ResultsOf 202 adults who completed the survey, results from 189 were used in the analysis. Approximately 50% of all patients reported a diagnosis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and 31% reported secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Approximately 71% of patients had current or prior experience with injectable multiple sclerosis medication. Approximately 53% had experienced flu-like symptoms caused by their medication, and 47% had experienced mild injection-site reactions. At least one significant difference was seen between levels in all attributes, except injection time. The greatest change in relative importance between levels of an attribute was years until symptoms get worse from 1 to 4 years. The magnitude of this difference was about twice that of relapses in the next 4 years, frequency of injections, and flu-like symptoms.ConclusionsMost attributes examined in this experiment had an influence on patient preference. Patients placed a significant value on improvements in the frequency of dosing and disability progression. Results suggest that changes in injection frequency can be as important as changes in efficacy and safety attributes. Understanding which attributes of injectable therapies influence patient preference could potentially improve outcomes and adherence in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Project description:Background and objectivePatients' perceptions and experiences of medication efficacy, medication adverse events, dosing frequency, and dosing complexity have been found to influence adherence to injectable disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this study was to quantify patient preferences for features of injectable DMTs for MS.MethodsAdult patients in the United States (US) with a self-reported diagnosis of MS completed an online discrete-choice experiment survey to assess preference for a number of features of a hypothetical injectable DMT. Patients chose hypothetical treatments in paired comparisons, where each treatment was described by features or attributes, including the number of years until disability progression, the number of relapses in the next 4 years, injection time, the frequency of injections, the occurrence of flu-like symptoms (FLS), and severity of injection-site reactions. Random-parameters logit regression parameters were used to calculate preference weights of attribute levels and the relative importance of changes in treatment features.ResultsOf the 205 patients who completed the survey, 192 provided sufficient data for analysis. The results indicated a broad range of tradeoffs that patients would be willing to make. With regard to this, the relative importance of an improvement in the number of years until disability progression from 1 to 2 (i.e., vertical distance between preference weights for these attribute levels) was 0.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5-1.2], the relative importance of this change was approximately equivalent to that of an improvement from 12 injections per month to two (mean 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.2), or approximately equivalent to a decrease from four to one relapses in the next 4 years (mean 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.2), or FLS 3 days after every injection to 3 days after some injections (mean 1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.4).ConclusionsThese results suggest that an improvement in treatment efficacy may be as important as a reduction in injection frequency or a reduction in some adverse events for patients who self-administer injectable DMTs for MS. Understanding the preferences of patients who use injectable treatments will inform the development of such treatments, which may in turn improve patient medication adherence and well-being.

Project description:Purpose:Teriparatide is used to treat patients with established osteoporosis but is often reserved for patients who have inadequate response to antiresorptive therapy. Biosimilar teriparatide, which is believed to have efficacy and safety similar to the originator product, is now available in Colombia. However, little is known about patients' preferences for originator biologic and biosimilar treatments. Our objective was to quantify the relative importance that patients in Colombia place on features of injectable osteoporosis treatments including whether the treatment is an originator biologic or a biosimilar. Patients and Methods:We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences of patients with osteoporosis treatment devices in Colombia. The survey was completed by 200 respondents at high risk of fracture, with or without teriparatide experience. Each treatment alternative within the DCE was characterized by five attributes: type of medicine (originator biologic, biosimilar), needle length, angle of injection, how to measure the medicine dose, and how long the medicine can be left unrefrigerated. A random parameters logit regression was used to estimate preferences and conditional relative attribute importance, while controlling for preference heterogeneity. Results:A total of 200 patients (mean age = 58.3 years) completed the survey. Most were female (84.5%) and married (54.5%); 50.5% had secondary education or less, 21% had current teriparatide exposure. The attribute with the highest conditional relative importance estimate (standard error) was biologic versus biosimilar (10 [1.11]), followed by needle length (8.06 [1.11]), dose measurement (6.38 [0.87]), refrigeration (3.81 [1.18]), and angle of injection (1.30 [0.66]). Unobserved preference heterogeneity was present and controlled for in the analyses. Conclusion:Despite the availability of biosimilar teriparatide in Colombia, patients expressed a strong preference for an originator biologic osteoporosis medicine over a biosimilar osteoporosis medicine, when the efficacy, safety, and cost of the two options were assumed to be the same.

Project description:Background: Investigational and marketed drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are associated with a range of characteristics and uncertainties regarding long term side-effects and efficacy. This raises questions about what matters most to patients living with this disease. This study aimed to understand which characteristics MM patients find most important, and hence should be included as attributes and levels in a subsequent quantitative preference survey among MM patients. Methods: This qualitative study involved: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) discussions with MM patients (n = 24) in Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Spain using Nominal Group Technique, (iii) a qualitative thematic analysis including multi-stakeholder discussions. Results: MM patients voiced significant expectations and hopes that treatments would extend their lives and reduce their cancer signs and symptoms. Participants however raised concerns about life-threatening side-effects that could cause permanent organ damage. Bone fractures and debilitating neuropathic effects (such as chronic tingling sensations) were highlighted as major issues reducing patients' independence and mobility. Patients discussed the negative impact of the following symptoms and side-effects on their daily activities: thinking problems, increased susceptibility to infections, reduced energy, pain, emotional problems, and vision problems. MM patients were concerned with uncertainties regarding the durability of positive treatment outcomes, and the cause, severity, and duration of their symptoms and side-effects. Patients feared short-term positive treatment responses complicated by permanent, severe side-effects and symptoms. Conclusions: This study gained an in-depth understanding of the treatment and disease-related characteristics and types of attribute levels (severity, duration) that are most important to MM patients. Results from this study argue in favor of MM drug development and individual treatment decision-making that focuses not only on extending patients' lives but also on addressing those symptoms and side-effects that significantly impact MM patients' quality of life. This study underscores a need for transparent communication toward MM patients about MM treatment outcomes and uncertainties regarding their long-term efficacy and safety. Finally, this study may help drug developers and decision-makers understand which treatment outcomes and uncertainties are most important to MM patients and therefore should be incorporated in MM drug development, evaluation, and clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectivesTo elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women.DesignA discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, postoperative recovery time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed 1 block of 10 and 2 validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression.SettingN=21 UK hospitals.ParticipantsN=325 adult women who were a subsample of those randomised to the single-incision mini-slings clinical trial.OutcomesPatient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay.ResultsN=227 of 325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay (mean (95% CI)) £76 (£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8173 (£5459 to £10 887) for 'improved' to £11 706 (£8267 to £15 144) for 'very much improved' symptoms, compared with no symptom improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to the avoidance of complications ranging between £-8022 (£-10 661 to £-5383) and £-10 632 (£-14 077 to £-7187) compared to no complications. Women valued treatments that reduced the need to avoid daily activities, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2199 to £266) for rarely avoiding activities to £-5338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared with no avoidance.ConclusionThis discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. Trade-offs between symptom improvement and adverse event risk should be considered within shared decision-making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 93264234; Post-results.

Project description:PURPOSE:To quantify clinical trial participants' and investigators' judgments with respect to the relative importance of efficacy and safety attributes of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia, and to assess the impact of formulation and adherence. METHODS:Discrete-choice experiment surveys were completed by patients with schizophrenia and physician investigators participating in two phase-3 clinical trials of paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic. Respondents were asked to choose between hypothetical antipsychotic profiles defined by efficacy, safety, and mode of administration. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and probit models. RESULTS:Patients (N=214) and physicians (N=438) preferred complete improvement in positive symptoms (severe to none) as the most important attribute, compared with improvement in any other attribute studied. Both respondents preferred 3-month and 1-month injectables to oral formulation (P<0.05), irrespective of prior adherence to oral antipsychotic treatment, with physicians showing greater preference for a 3-month over a 1-month LAI for nonadherent patients. Physicians were willing to accept treatments with reduced efficacy for patients with prior poor adherence. The maximum decrease in efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI]) that physicians would accept for switching a patient from daily oral to 3-month injectable was as follows: adherent: 9.8% (95% CI: 7.2-12.4), 20% nonadherent: 25.4% (95% CI: 21.0-29.9), and 50% nonadherent: >30%. For patients, adherent: 10.1% (95% CI: 6.1-14.1), nonadherent: the change in efficacy studied was regarded as unimportant. CONCLUSION:Improvement in positive symptoms was the most important attribute. Patients and physicians preferred LAIs over oral antipsychotics, with physicians showing a greater preference for 3-month over 1-month LAI. Physicians and patients were willing to accept reduced efficacy in exchange for switching a patient from an oral formulation to a LAI.