Evaluating preferences for profiles of GLP-1 receptor agonists among injection-naïve type 2 diabetes patients in the UK

References

• WildSRoglicGGreenASicreeRKingHGlobal prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030Diabetes Care20042751047105315111519
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• InzucchiSEBergenstalRMBuseJBManagement 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 Care20123561364137922517736
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• InzucchiSEBergenstalRMBuseJBManagement of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of DiabetesDiabetes Care201538114014925538310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchwartzSDeFronzoRAThe use of non-insulin anti-diabetic agents to improve glycemia without hypoglycemia in the hospital setting: focus on incretinsCurr Diab Rep201414346624515252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GallwitzBGlucagon-like peptide-1-based therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitusTreat Endocrinol20054636137016318402
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• PolsterMZanuttoEMcDonaldSConnerCHammerMA comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products – liraglutide and exenatide – for the treatment of type 2 diabetesJ Med Econ201013465566121034377
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• GelhornHLStringerSMBrooksAPreferences for medication attributes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UKDiabetes Obes Metab201315980280923464623
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GelhornHLStringerSMLeeEPalenciaRA discrete choice experiment conducted among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the United StatesPaper presented at: ISPOR 19th Annual International MeetingMay 31–June 4, 2014aMontreal, QC, Canada
   Google Scholar
• GelhornHLStringerSMReindersSSchreebKHGerman patients’ preferences for attributes of type 2 diabetes medicationsPaper presented at: ISPOR 17th Annual European CongressNovember 8–12, 2014bAmsterdam, the Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• MohamedAFZhangJJohnsonFRAvoidance of weight gain is important for oral type 2 diabetes treatments in Sweden and Germany: patient preferencesDiabetes Metab201339539740323880594
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• HauberABTunceliKYangJCA survey of patient preferences for oral antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitusDiabetes Ther201561758425586555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HauberABNguyenHPosnerJErvinCLaRueSKalsekarIPatient preferences for frequency of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) injections in the treatment of type 2 diabetesPaper presented at: ISPOR 19th Annual International MeetingMay 31–June 4, 2014Montreal, QC, Canada
   Google Scholar
• BolenSWilsonLVassyJComparative effectiveness and safety of oral diabetes medications for adults with type 2 diabetesComparative effectiveness review No. 8 (Prepared by Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0018)Rockville, MDAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality2007
   Google Scholar
• BuseJBNauckMForstTExenatide once weekly versus liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-6): a randomised, open-label studyLancet2013381986111712423141817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DunganKMPovedanoSTForstTEfficacy and safety of once weekly dulaglutide versus once daily liraglutide in type 2 diabetes (AWARD-6)Paper presented at: American Diabetes Association’s 74th Scientific SessionsJune 13–17, 2014San Francisco, CA
   Google Scholar
• AhmannASzeinbachSLGillJTraylorLGargSKComparing patient preferences and healthcare provider recommendations with the pen versus vial-and-syringe insulin delivery in patients with type 2 diabetesDiabetes Technol Ther2014162768324266497
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoyeKSMatzaLSWalterKNVan BruntKPalsgroveACTynanAUtilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetesEur J Health Econ201112321923020224930
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JendleJTorffvitORidderstraleMEricssonANilsenBBogelundMWillingness to pay for diabetes drug therapy in type 2 diabetes patients: based on LEAD clinical programme resultsJ Med Econ201215Suppl 21522853443
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SimonJALewieckiEMSmithMEPetruschkeRAWangLPalmisanoJJPatient preference for once-weekly alendronate 70 mg versus once-daily alendronate 10 mg: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover studyClin Ther200224111871188612501880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SilvermanSCalderonAKawKPatient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences using conjoint analysisOsteoporos Int20132472067207723247328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MarshallDBridgesJFHauberBConjoint analysis applications in health – How are studies being designed and reported?: An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008Patient20103424925622273432
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Instructions for Use: Trulicity^® 1.5 mg Single-Use Pre-filled Pen (Dulaglutide)Indianapolis, INEli Lilly and Company2014
   Google Scholar
• Instructions for Use: Victoza^® 6 mg/mL Solution for Injection in Pre-filled Pen (Liraglutide)Bagsvaerd, DenmarkNovo Nordisk A/S2013
   Google Scholar
• OrmeBGetting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing ResearchMadison, WIResearch Publishers, LLC2005
   Google Scholar
• KuhfeldWFMarketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques1012010SAS 9.2 Edition MR-2010. Available from: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010.pdfAccessed April 13, 2015
   Google Scholar
• Haymarket Media GroupMIMS Available from: http://www.mims.co.ukAccessed May 29, 2015
   Google Scholar
• GelhornHLStringerSMBrooksAPatients’ preferences for attributes of type 2 diabetes medications: a conjoint analysisPaper presented at: ISPOR 15th Annual European CongressNovember 3–7, 2012Berlin, Germany
   Google Scholar