21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preference for Oral and Injectable GLP-1 RA Therapy Profiles in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Discrete Choice Experiment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) approved to date are administered by injection; therefore, patient perceptions of an oral GLP-1 RA are unknown. This discrete choice experiment explored preferences for (unbranded) oral and injectable GLP-1 RA profiles among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

          Methods

          An online survey was designed using literature review and qualitative interview findings, and administered to Japanese patients with T2D and HbA 1c ≥ 7.0% receiving oral antiglycaemic medication (with no experience of injectable antiglycaemic medication). Therapy profiles were created using Japanese head-to-head trial data for orally administered semaglutide (7 mg and 14 mg), injectable dulaglutide (0.75 mg), and injectable liraglutide (0.9 mg). Profiles were not labelled. Choice tasks tested preference between hypothetical profiles, preference between profiles with actual trial data, and willingness to initiate treatment. Relative importance of attributes was determined using conditional logit regression.

          Results

          A total of 500 respondents were analysed: mean age 61.2 years; 93.8% male; mean HbA 1c 7.6%; 78.2% with HbA 1c ≥ 7.0 to < 8%; 89% with HbA 1c above personal target. Mean BMI was 25.4 kg/m 2; 49% had obesity (≥ 25 kg/m 2). The treatment attribute with greatest importance was mode and frequency of administration (49.1%), followed by nausea risk (30.8%), weight change (11.3%), and HbA 1c change (8.8%). Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg-like profiles were both preferred: the 7 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 91.0% of respondents) and liraglutide (by 89.4%); the 14 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 88.2%) and liraglutide (by 94.4%). Willingness to initiate treatment was also higher for orally administered semaglutide-like profiles: 62.4% with 7 mg and 64.0% with 14 mg, versus 13.6% and 11.0% with injectable GLP-1 RA-like profiles. Subgroup results were generally consistent with the overall sample.

          Conclusion

          Japanese patients with T2D appear to prefer oral GLP-1 RA profiles over injectable GLP-1 RA profiles, and administration appears to be the most important factor in this decision. This highlights the unmet need for an effective and orally administered GLP-1 RA for the treatment of T2D in Japan.

          Electronic Supplementary Material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01561-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018.

          (2017)
          The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

            No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health. The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers. Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items. Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jklg@novonordisk.com
                Journal
                Adv Ther
                Adv Ther
                Advances in Therapy
                Springer Healthcare (Cheshire )
                0741-238X
                1865-8652
                27 November 2020
                27 November 2020
                2021
                : 38
                : 1
                : 721-738
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.268441.d, ISNI 0000 0001 1033 6139, Unit of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, , Yokohama City University School of Medicine, ; Kanagawa, Japan
                [2 ]GRID grid.26999.3d, ISNI 0000 0001 2151 536X, Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, , The University of Tokyo, ; Tokyo, Japan
                [3 ]GRID grid.425956.9, ISNI 0000 0001 2264 864X, Novo Nordisk A/S, ; Søborg, Denmark
                [4 ]Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
                [5 ]Adelphi Values PROVE, Cheshire, UK
                Article
                1561
                10.1007/s12325-020-01561-1
                7854394
                33245530
                0c53d424-0865-4bbd-b987-def243a4c649
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 August 2020
                : 4 November 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Novo Nordisk
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2021

                discrete choice experiment,glp-1 receptor agonist,patient preference,type 2 diabetes (t2d)

                Comments

                Comment on this article