Cargando…
Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes
PURPOSE: Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233232/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33886044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02808-2 |
_version_ | 1783713805626245120 |
---|---|
author | Matza, Louis S. Cutts, Katelyn N. Stewart, Katie D. Norrbacka, Kirsi García-Pérez, Luis-Emilio Boye, Kristina S. |
author_facet | Matza, Louis S. Cutts, Katelyn N. Stewart, Katie D. Norrbacka, Kirsi García-Pérez, Luis-Emilio Boye, Kristina S. |
author_sort | Matza, Louis S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Participants with T2D in the UK reported preferences and valued four health state vignettes in time trade-off utility interviews. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without administration requirements), (2) daily oral semaglutide (with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide injection, (4) weekly semaglutide injection. RESULTS: Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age = 58.7). Preferences between treatment processes varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral semaglutide, 0.878 for dulaglutide injection, and 0.859 for semaglutide injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p < 0.01), except the comparison between oral semaglutide and the dulaglutide injection (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., oral versus injectable). Dose frequency and specific details of the treatment process administration had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-utility models comparing these treatments for T2D. Results also suggest that it may be helpful to consider patient preferences for treatment process when selecting medications for patients in clinical settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02808-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8233232 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82332322021-07-09 Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes Matza, Louis S. Cutts, Katelyn N. Stewart, Katie D. Norrbacka, Kirsi García-Pérez, Luis-Emilio Boye, Kristina S. Qual Life Res Article PURPOSE: Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Participants with T2D in the UK reported preferences and valued four health state vignettes in time trade-off utility interviews. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without administration requirements), (2) daily oral semaglutide (with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide injection, (4) weekly semaglutide injection. RESULTS: Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age = 58.7). Preferences between treatment processes varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral semaglutide, 0.878 for dulaglutide injection, and 0.859 for semaglutide injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p < 0.01), except the comparison between oral semaglutide and the dulaglutide injection (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., oral versus injectable). Dose frequency and specific details of the treatment process administration had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-utility models comparing these treatments for T2D. Results also suggest that it may be helpful to consider patient preferences for treatment process when selecting medications for patients in clinical settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02808-2. Springer International Publishing 2021-04-22 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8233232/ /pubmed/33886044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02808-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits 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/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Matza, Louis S. Cutts, Katelyn N. Stewart, Katie D. Norrbacka, Kirsi García-Pérez, Luis-Emilio Boye, Kristina S. Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes |
title | Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes |
title_full | Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes |
title_fullStr | Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes |
title_full_unstemmed | Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes |
title_short | Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes |
title_sort | health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable glp-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233232/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33886044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02808-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT matzalouiss healthstateutilitiesassociatedwithtreatmentprocessfororalandinjectableglp1receptoragonistsfortype2diabetes AT cuttskatelynn healthstateutilitiesassociatedwithtreatmentprocessfororalandinjectableglp1receptoragonistsfortype2diabetes AT stewartkatied healthstateutilitiesassociatedwithtreatmentprocessfororalandinjectableglp1receptoragonistsfortype2diabetes AT norrbackakirsi healthstateutilitiesassociatedwithtreatmentprocessfororalandinjectableglp1receptoragonistsfortype2diabetes AT garciaperezluisemilio healthstateutilitiesassociatedwithtreatmentprocessfororalandinjectableglp1receptoragonistsfortype2diabetes AT boyekristinas healthstateutilitiesassociatedwithtreatmentprocessfororalandinjectableglp1receptoragonistsfortype2diabetes |