IntroductionUnderstanding patient preferences for attributes of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications may help explain how the attributes differentially affect patient perceptions and behaviors. In this survey, we quantified the relative preferences among patients in Germany and Spain in separate analyses.MethodsA stated-preference, discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey was designed to elicit preferences for T2DM treatment attributes among patients with self-reported T2DM and who reported being prescribed T2DM medication for > 2 years. Patients recruited from an online national consumer panel completed an online survey. The survey presented choices between eight pairs of hypothetical T2DM treatments defined by seven attributes: chance of reaching target hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level; reduced risk of serious heart attack or stroke; frequency of hypoglycemia; risk of gastrointestinal (GI) problems; weight change; mode of administration (oral or injectable); dosing frequency. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. Minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) was defined as the minimum increase in the probability of reaching target HbA1c for which respondents would accept less desirable levels of other attributes.ResultsIn Germany and Spain, 474 and 401 respondents completed the survey, respectively. DCE analysis showed that risk of GI problems was most important to German respondents. MAB analysis found that respondents would require a 56 percentage point increase in the probability of reaching their HbA1c target to offset a change from 0% to 30% risk of GI problems. For Spanish respondents, mode of administration was the most important attribute. These respondents would require a 59 percentage point increase in the probability of reaching their HbA1c target to offset moving from oral to injectable medications.ConclusionsRespondents in Germany and Spain were willing to trade efficacy for improvements in side effects and mode of administration. Given the variety of T2DM medications currently available, the results suggest that careful discussion about patient preferences could help improve patient satisfaction with T2DM treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-017-0326-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PURPOSE Whole genome sequencing (WGS) can be used as a powerful diagnostic tool which could also be used for screening but may generate anxiety, unnecessary testing and overtreatment. Current guidelines suggest reporting clinically actionable secondary findings when diagnostic testing is performed. We estimated preferences for receiving WGS results. METHODS A US nationally representative survey (n=410 adults) was used to rank preferences for who decides (expert panel, your doctor, you) which WGS results are reported. We estimated the value of information about variants with varying levels of clinical usefulness using willingness-to-pay contingent valuation questions. RESULTS 43% preferred to decide themselves what information is included in the WGS report. 38% (95% CI:33–43%) would not pay for actionable variants, and 3% (95% CI:1–5%) would pay more than $1000. 55% (95% CI:50–60%) would not pay for variants in which medical treatment is currently unclear, and 7% (95% CI:5–9%) would pay more than $400. CONCLUSION Most people prefer to decide what WGS results are reported. Despite valuing actionable information more, some respondents perceive that genetic information could negatively impact them. Preference heterogeneity for WGS information should be considered in the development of policies, particularly to integrate patient preferences with personalized medicine and shared decision making.

PurposeTo quantify clinical trial participants’ and investigators’ judgments with respect to the relative importance of efficacy and safety attributes of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia, and to assess the impact of formulation and adherence.MethodsDiscrete-choice experiment surveys were completed by patients with schizophrenia and physician investigators participating in two phase-3 clinical trials of paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic. Respondents were asked to choose between hypothetical antipsychotic profiles defined by efficacy, safety, and mode of administration. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and probit models.ResultsPatients (N=214) and physicians (N=438) preferred complete improvement in positive symptoms (severe to none) as the most important attribute, compared with improvement in any other attribute studied. Both respondents preferred 3-month and 1-month injectables to oral formulation (P<0.05), irrespective of prior adherence to oral antipsychotic treatment, with physicians showing greater preference for a 3-month over a 1-month LAI for nonadherent patients. Physicians were willing to accept treatments with reduced efficacy for patients with prior poor adherence. The maximum decrease in efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI]) that physicians would accept for switching a patient from daily oral to 3-month injectable was as follows: adherent: 9.8% (95% CI: 7.2–12.4), 20% nonadherent: 25.4% (95% CI: 21.0–29.9), and 50% nonadherent: >30%. For patients, adherent: 10.1% (95% CI: 6.1–14.1), nonadherent: the change in efficacy studied was regarded as unimportant.ConclusionImprovement in positive symptoms was the most important attribute. Patients and physicians preferred LAIs over oral antipsychotics, with physicians showing a greater preference for 3-month over 1-month LAI. Physicians and patients were willing to accept reduced efficacy in exchange for switching a patient from an oral formulation to a LAI.