Patient preferences and health state utilities associated with dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy

References

• American Diabetes Association (ADA), Standards of medical care in diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:S150.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia. 2018;61:2461–2498.
   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;34:1247–1258 e22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinnen D. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Spectr. 2017;30:202–210.
   PubMedGoogle 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;19:524–536.
   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 Endocrin. 2015;6:19–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Instructions for use BYDUREON® (by-DUR-ee-on) (dulaglutide) single-dose tray (exenatide extended-release) for injectable suspension. Approved: October 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Eli Lilly and Company. Instructions for use TRULICITY® (dulaglutide) injection, for subcutaneous use, 1.5 mg/0.5 mL single-dose pen once weekly. 2014/2017. 2017 [cited 2018, Jan 10]; Available from: http://pi.lilly.com/us/trulicity-highdose-ai-ifu.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• GlaxoSmithKline. Instructions for use TANZEUM® (albiglutide) injection, for subcutaneous use, 30 mg | 50 mg in a single-dose pen. Revised: December 2017; Available from: www.gsksource.com/pharma/content/dam/GlaxoSmithKline/US/en/Prescribing_Information/Tanzeum/pdf/TANZEUM-PI-MG-IFU-COMBINED.PDF.
   Google Scholar
• Novo Nordisk A/S. OZEMPIC® (semaglutide) injection, for subcutaneous use, 0.5 mg/1 mg. Highlights of prescribing information. 2017 [cited 2018, Jan 10]; Available from: http://www.novo-pi.com/ozempic.pdf#IFU.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan VK, Dixon S. Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:677–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins A, Barnett J, Meads C, et al. Does convenience matter in health care delivery? A systematic review of convenience-based aspects of process utility. Value Health. 2014;17:877–887.
   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;7:33–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris LS, Schulz RM. Medication compliance: the patient’s perspective. Clin Ther. 1993;15:593–606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raue PJ, Schulberg HC, Heo M, et al. Patients’ depression treatment preferences and initiation, adherence, and outcome: a randomized primary care study. PS. 2009;60:337–343.
   Google Scholar
• Shikiar R, Rentz A, Barone J, et al. Patient satisfaction with ofloxacin (F) and polymyxin B/Neomycin/Hydrocortisone© in the treatment of otitis externa: results from two randomized clinical trials. J Manag Care Med. 2002;6:24–27.
   Google Scholar
• Shikiar R, Rentz AM. Satisfaction with medication: an overview of conceptual, methodologic, and regulatory issues. Value Health. 2004;7:204–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasalvia P, Barahona-Correa JE, Romero-Alvernia DM, et al. Pen devices for insulin self-administration compared with needle and vial: systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10:959–966.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2017. 372pp.
   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;12:219–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matza L, Boye K, Jordan J, et al. Patient preferences in Italy: health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Patient. PPA. 2018;12:971–979.
   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. 2017a;17:774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, et al. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products-liraglutide and exenatide-for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13:655–661.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eli Lilly and Company. Dulaglutide EU label: TRULICITY® solution for injection in pre-filled pen use 0.75 mg/1.5 mg. 2014 [cited 2018, Jan 10]; Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/product-information/trulicity-epar-product-information_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Eli Lilly and Company, Data on file: Market Share of Trulicity® in Italy. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly and Company; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Novo Nordisk A/S. Semaglutide EU label: OZEMPIC® solution for injection in pre-filled pen use 0.25 mg/0.5 mg/1 mg. 2018 [cited 2018, Jan 10]; Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/ozempic-epar-product-information_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey TS. Clinical efficacy of once-weekly glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:S14–S24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pozzilli P, Norwood P, Jódar E, et al. Placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the addition of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to titrated daily insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-9). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19:1024–1031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorli C, Harashima S-I, Tsoukas GM, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial. Lancet Diabetes Endo. 2017;5:251–260.
   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). Dia Care. 2014;37:2159–2167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Boye KS, Yurgin N, et al. Utilities and disutilities for type 2 diabetes treatment-related attributes. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1251–1265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Stewart KD, Davies EW, et al. Health state utilities associated with glucose monitoring devices. Value Health. 2017;20:507–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaudet A, Palmer JL, Timlin L, et al. Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. J Med Econ. 2011;14:357–366.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bilir SP, Li H, Wehler EA, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of a flash glucose monitoring system for Type 1 Diabetes (T1DM) patients receiving intensive insulin treatment in Europe and Australia. Value Health. 2016;19:A697–A698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Bilir SP, Wehler EA, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of a flash glucose monitoring system for Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) patients receiving intensive insulin treatment in Europe. Value Health. 2016;19:A698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittendorf T, Smith-Palmer J, Timlin L, et al. Evaluation of exenatide vs. insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes: cost-effectiveness analysis in the German setting. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11:1068–1079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samyshkin Y, Guillermin A-L, Best JH, et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of exenatide once weekly versus insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the US. J Med Econ. 2012;15:6–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sinha A, Rajan M, Hoerger T, et al. Costs and consequences associated with newer medications for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:695–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson JE, Thieu VT, Boye KS, et al. Dulaglutide in the treatment of adult type 2 diabetes: a perspective for primary care providers. Postgrad Med. 2016;128:810–821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Boye KS, Currie BM, et al. Patient perceptions of injection devices used with dulaglutide and liraglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34:1457–1464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratley RE, Aroda VR, Lingvay I, et al. Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. Lancet Diabetes Endo. 2018;6:275–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind P. The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality life pharmacoeconomics clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. p. 191–201.
   Google Scholar
• Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, et al. From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health. 2014;17:70–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The EuroQol Group, EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R, et al. Italian population-based values of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2013;16:814–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27:7–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, et al. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28:395–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar