Disutility of injectable therapies in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: general population preferences in the UK, Canada, and China

Abstract

Introduction Once-daily and once-weekly injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapies (GLP-1 RAs) are established in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In T2DM, both once-daily and once-weekly insulin are expected to be available. This study elicited utilities associated with these treatment regimens from members of the general public in the UK, Canada, and China, to quantify administration-related disutility of more-frequent injectable treatment, and allow economic modelling. Methods Two anchor states (no pharmacological treatment), and seven treatment states (daily oral tablet and generic injectable regimens of variable frequency), with identical outcomes were tested A broadly representative sample of the general public in each country participated (excluding individuals with diabetes or pharmacologically treated obesity). An adapted Measurement and Valuation of Health protocol was administered 1:1 in web-enabled interviews by trained moderators: visual analogue scale (VAS) as a “warm-up”, and time trade-off (TTO) using a 20-year time horizon for utility elicitation. Results A total of 310 individuals participated. The average disutility of once-daily versus once-weekly GLP-1 RA was − 0.048 in obesity and − 0.033 in T2DM; the corresponding average disutility for insulin was − 0.064. Disutilities were substantially greater in China, relative to UK and Canada. Discussion Within obesity and T2DM, more-frequent treatment health states had lower utility. Scores by VAS also followed a logical order. The generated utility values are suitable for use in modelling injectable therapy regimens in obesity and T2DM, due to the use of generic descriptions and assumption of equal efficacy. Future research could examine the reasons for greater administration-related disutility in China.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

“…Disutility values are often expressed as negative values, which may be derived by subtracting utility values for the health state with the symptom or complication of interest from those of the health state without that symptom or complication [ 2 ]. As research in this area has grown, more disutility values have been estimated, associated with particular characteristics [ 3 ], including mode of administration [ 4 ], dose frequency [ 5 ], medical device attributes [ 6 ], treatment convenience [ 7 ], and caregivers [ 8 ]. Including disutility in economic models is helpful to evaluate the impact of all factors on health outcomes and achieve a more accurate assessment of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).…”

“…Statistics released by IQVIA in 2021 estimated that 169 antitumor drugs were launched in the past decade [ 4 ]. Although the introduction of new drugs has improved the quality of life of patients, it has also led to an increase in the cost of cancer treatments [ 5 ]. Coupled with the existence of finite healthcare budgets, CUA for cancer treatment has become more important.…”