Patient preferences in Italy: health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes
Authors Matza LS, Boye KS, Jordan JB, Norrbacka K, Gentilella R, Tiebout AR, Browne C, Orsini Federici M, Biricolti G, Stewart KD
Received 12 December 2017
Accepted for publication 14 April 2018
Published 6 June 2018 Volume 2018:12 Pages 971—979
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Lucy Goodman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
Louis S Matza,1 Kristina S Boye,2 Jessica B Jordan,1 Kirsi Norrbacka,3 Raffaella Gentilella,4 Amara R Tiebout,1 Chantelle Browne,5 Marco Orsini Federici,4 Giovanni Biricolti,4 Katie D Stewart1
1Patient-Centered Research, Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA; 2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3Eli Lilly and Company, Helsinki, Finland; 4Eli Lilly and Company, Florence, Italy; 5Modeling and Simulation, Evidera, London, UK
Objectives: Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are administered as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). These medications vary in their injection processes, and a recent study in the UK found that these differences had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The purpose of this study was to replicate the UK study in Italy to examine preferences of an Italian patient sample, while allowing for comparison between utilities in the UK and Italy.
Materials and methods: Participants with T2D in Italy valued health states in time trade-off interviews. All health states had the same description of T2D, but differed in description of the treatment process. As in the original UK study, the first health state described an oral treatment regimen, while additional health states added a weekly injection. The injection health states differed in three injection-related attributes: requirements for reconstituting the medication, waiting during medication preparation, and needle handling.
Results: Interviews were completed by 238 patients (58.8% male; mean age = 60.2 years; 118 from Milan, 120 from Rome). The oral treatment health state had a mean (SD) utility of 0.90 (0.10). The injection health states had significantly (p < 0.0001) lower utilities, which ranged from 0.87 (requirements for reconstitution, waiting, and handling) to 0.89 (weekly injection with none of these requirements). Differences in health state utility scores suggest that each administration requirement was associated with a disutility (ie, negative utility difference): -0.006 (reconstitution), -0.006 (needle handling), -0.011 (reconstitution, needle handling), and -0.022 (reconstitution, waiting, needle handling).
Conclusion: Disutilities associated with the injection device characteristics were similar to those reported with the UK sample. Results suggest that injection device attributes may be important to some patients with T2D, and it may be useful for clinicians to consider these attributes when choosing medication for patients initiating these weekly treatments.
Keywords: utility, type 2 diabetes, injection process, GLP-1 receptor agonist, time trade-off, weekly injection, Italy, injection device
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]