» Articles » PMID: 30165844

Valuing Injection Frequency and Other Attributes of Type 2 Diabetes Treatments in Australia: a Discrete Choice Experiment

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2018 Sep 1
PMID 30165844
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Multiple pharmacotherapy options are available to control blood glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Patients and prescribers may have different preferences for T2DM treatment attributes, such as mode and frequency of administration, based on their experiences and beliefs which may impact adherence. As adherence is a pivotal issue in diabetes therapy, it is important to understand what patients value and how they trade-off the risks and benefits of new treatments. This study aims to investigate the key drivers of choice for T2DM treatments, with a focus on injection frequency, and explore patients' associated willingness-to-pay.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to present patients with a series of trade-offs between different treatment options, injectable and oral medicines that were made up of 10 differing levels of attributes (frequency and mode of administration, weight change, needle type, storage, nausea, injection site reactions, hypoglycaemic events, instructions with food and cost). A sample of 171 Australian consenting adult T2DM patients, of which 58 were receiving twice-daily injections of exenatide and 113 were on oral glucose-lowering treatments, completed the national online survey. An error components model was used to estimate the relative priority and key drivers of choice patients place on different attributes and to estimate their willingness to pay for new treatments.

Results: Injection frequency, weight change, and nausea were shown to be important attributes for patients receiving injections. Within this cohort, a once-weekly injection generated an additional benefit over a twice-daily injection, equivalent to a weighted total willingness to pay of AUD$22.35 per month.

Conclusions: Based on the patient preferences, the importance of frequency of administration and other non-health benefits can be valued. Understanding patient preferences has an important role in health technology assessment, as the identification of the value as well as the importance weighting for each treatment attribute may assist with funding decisions beyond clinical trial outcomes.

Citing Articles

Which antidiabetic drugs do patients of T2DM prefer in India and why? A discrete choice experiment.

Vaidya S, Atal S, Joshi R J Family Med Prim Care. 2024; 13(11):5090-5100.

PMID: 39722926 PMC: 11668413. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_605_24.


Understanding the experience, treatment preferences and goals of people living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Australia.

Fifer S, Godsell J, Opat S, Hamad N, Lasica M, Forsyth C BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):831.

PMID: 38992616 PMC: 11241996. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12589-9.


What Is the Role of Basal Weekly Insulin in Clinical Practice? The State of the Art.

Argano C, Priola L, Manno F, Corrao S Biomedicines. 2024; 12(4).

PMID: 38672255 PMC: 11048618. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12040900.


Evaluating the Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Chuang L, Zhang H, Hong T, Xie S Patient. 2024; 17(5):565-574.

PMID: 38642244 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00694-7.


HTA community perspectives on the use of patient preference information: lessons learned from a survey with members of HTA bodies.

Hiligsmann M, Liden B, Beaudart C, Germeni E, Hanna A, Joshi M Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024; 40(1):e17.

PMID: 38439624 PMC: 11569952. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462324000138.


References
1.
Gelhorn H, Bacci E, Poon J, Boye K, Suzuki S, Babineaux S . Evaluating preferences for profiles of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among injection-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Japan. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016; 10:1337-48. PMC: 4966566. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S109289. View

2.
Davey P, Grainger D, MacMillan J, Rajan N, Aristides M, Dobson M . Economic evaluation of insulin lispro versus neutral (regular) insulin therapy using a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998; 13(3):347-58. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199813030-00009. View

3.
Sundaram M, Kavookjian J, Patrick J . Health-related quality of life and quality of life in type 2 diabetes: relationships in a cross-sectional study. Patient. 2012; 2(2):121-33. DOI: 10.2165/01312067-200902020-00008. View

4.
Brod M, Pohlman B, Kongso J . Insulin administration and the impacts of forgetting a dose. Patient. 2013; 7(1):63-71. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-013-0029-9. View

5.
Phillips K, Reed Johnson F, Maddala T . Measuring what people value: a comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys. Health Serv Res. 2003; 37(6):1659-79. PMC: 1464045. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.01116. View