Patient perceptions of injection devices used with dulaglutide and liraglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes

References

• American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl 1):S1-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2012;35:1364-79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aroda VR, Henry RR, Han J, et al. Efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors: meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Ther 2012;34:1247-58 e1222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Htike ZZ, Zaccardi F, Papamargaritis D, et al. Efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19:524-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trujillo JM, Nuffer W, Ellis SL. GLP-1 receptor agonists: a review of head-to-head clinical studies. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab 2015;6:19-28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novo Nordisk. A Focused Healthcare Company – Investor Presentation [First Nine Months of 2016]. 2016
   Google Scholar
• Jackson SH, Martin TS, Jones JD, et al. Liraglutide (Victoza): the first once-daily incretin mimetic injection for type-2 diabetes. P&T 2010;35:498-529
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buse JB, Rosenstock J, Sesti G, et al. Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6). Lancet 2009;374:39-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garber A, Henry R, Ratner R, et al. Liraglutide versus glimepiride monotherapy for type 2 diabetes (LEAD-3 Mono): a randomised, 52-week, phase III, double-blind, parallel-treatment trial. Lancet 2009;373:473-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marre M, Shaw J, Brandle M, et al. Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, added to a sulphonylurea over 26 weeks produces greater improvements in glycaemic and weight control compared with adding rosiglitazone or placebo in subjects with type 2 diabetes (LEAD-1 SU). Diabetic Med 2009;26:268-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nauck M, Frid A, Hermansen K, et al. Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study. Diabetes Care 2009;32:84-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell-Jones D, Vaag A, Schmitz O, et al. Liraglutide vs insulin glargine and placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (LEAD-5 met + SU): a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2009;52:2046-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinman B, Gerich J, Buse JB, et al. Efficacy and safety of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide in combination with metformin and thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes (LEAD-4 Met + TZD). Diabetes Care 2009;32:1224-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards KL, Minze MG. Dulaglutide: an evidence-based review of its potential in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Core Evidence 2015;10:11-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blonde L, Jendle J, Gross J, et al. Once-weekly dulaglutide versus bedtime insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet 2015;385:2057-66
   Google Scholar
• Dungan KM, Povedano ST, Forst T, et al. Once-weekly dulaglutide versus once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-6): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2014;384:1349-57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giorgino F, Benroubi M, Sun JH, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin and glimepiride (AWARD-2). Diabetes Care 2015;38:2241-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nauck M, Weinstock RS, Umpierrez GE, et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 52 weeks in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-5). Diabetes Care 2014;37:2149-58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umpierrez G, Tofe Povedano S, Perez Manghi F, et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3). Diabetes Care 2014;37:2168-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wysham C, Blevins T, Arakaki R, et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide added onto pioglitazone and metformin versus exenatide in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-1). Diabetes Care 2014;37:2159-67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:311-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdinand KC, Botros FT, Atisso CM, Sager PT. Cardiovascular safety for once-weekly dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes: a pre-specified meta-analysis of prospectively adjudicated cardiovascular events. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2016;15:38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, et al. Design and baseline characteristics of participants in the Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial on the cardiovascular effects of dulaglutide. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018;20:42-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novo Nordisk. Victoza (liraglutide) injection, for subcutaneous use – 1.2 mg/1.8 mg. 2017. Available at: http://www.novo-pi.com/victoza.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Eli Lilly and Company. Instructions for Use: Trulicity (Trū-li-si-tee) (dulaglutide) injection, for subcutaneous use – 0.75 mg/0.5 mL single-dose pen once weekly. 2017. Available at: http://pi.lilly.com/us/trulicity-lowdose-ai-ifu.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gelhorn HL, Bacci ED, Poon JL, et al. Evaluating preferences for profiles of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among injection-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Japan. Patient Preference Adherence 2016;10:1337-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelhorn HL, Poon JL, Davies EW, et al. Evaluating preferences for profiles of GLP-1 receptor agonists among injection-naive type 2 diabetes patients in the UK. Patient Preference Adherence 2015;9:1611-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hixson-Wallace JA, Dotson JB, Blakey SA. Effect of regimen complexity on patient satisfaction and compliance with warfarin therapy. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2001;7:33-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Boye KS, Stewart KD, et al. Health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:774
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shikiar R, Rentz AM. Satisfaction with medication: an overview of conceptual, methodologic, and regulatory issues. Value Health 2004;7:204-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. Public Workshop: Diabetes Outcome Measures Beyond Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Silver Spring, MD, 2016. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm499281.htm
   Google Scholar
• Express Scripts. Report: Adherence to Diabetes Rx. 25 August 2017
   Google Scholar
• Khunti K, Seidu S, Kunutsor S, Davies M. Association between adherence to pharmacotherapy and outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2017;40(11):1588-1596
   Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Boye KS, Stewart KD, et al. Development of the Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ); Under review
   Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Stewart KD, Paczkowski R, et al. Patient perceptions of non-insulin injection devices for type 2 diabetes. ISPOR 21st Annual International Meeting, Washington, DC, 21–25 May 2016
   Google Scholar
• Matza L, Stewart K, Paczkowski R, et al. Validation of a questionnaire to assess patient perceptions of injection devices for type 2 diabetes. ISPOR 22nd Annual International Meeting, Boston, MA, 20–24 May 2017
   Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Stewart KD, Paczkowski R, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ); Under review
   Google Scholar
• Census Bureau.Gov. Census Bureau Regions and Divisions with State FIPS Codes 2017. Available at: https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/maps/reg_div.txt
   Google Scholar
• Boye KS, Matza LS, Walter KN, et al. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ 2011;12:219-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar