Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes

Abstract

The three injection attributes were associated with small utility shifts in the expected directions. Dose frequency appears to be the most important of the three attributes from the patients' perspective. The vignette-based SG approach was feasible and useful for assessing added utility or disutility of injection-related attributes associated with treatments for type 2 diabetes.

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed‐ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal‐bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): A short‐term cost‐effectiveness analysis in the UK setting

“…Additionally, the multiple daily injections required represent a more complex treatment regimen. These factors have been linked to reduced patient adherence, leading to impaired glycaemic control 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21…”

Patient Preferences In Italy: Health State Utilities Associated With Attributes Of Weekly Injection Devices For Treatment Of Type 2 Diabetes

“…These methods were based on those of two previous studies that were conducted to estimate utilities associated with attributes of injectable treatments for T2D. 20,21 The utilities reported in these previous publications have been used in multiple published CUAs of treatments for T2D. [22][23][24][25] Utilities were estimated using health state descriptions because the vignette-based approach is well-suited for isolating the impact of specific treatment-related attributes on utility.…”

“…First, health states from two previously published studies were adapted for the introductory description of T2D appearing at the beginning of every health state. 20,21 Second, a literature search was performed to identify attributes of injection devices that were likely to be important to patients and differentiate the weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. [27][28][29] …”

“…This health state, with language adapted from previous studies, provided context for the injection-related attributes that were included in the other health states. 20,21 Six subsequent health states (B to G, the "injectable health states") had the same content as health state A, but added description of a weekly injectable treatment with additional statements describing three injection process attributes: reconstitution, waiting, and needle handling. To provide respondents with a clear understanding of these injection process attributes, a device display page was also presented.…”

“…These disutilities are similar in magnitude to utility differences reported for other treatment process variables, such as route of administration and variations in the injection process, which typically range from 0.01 to 0.05. 20,35,36 These small differences in utility can have an impact on the outcome of a cost-utility model, particularly when modeling large groups of patients over a long time period. Thus, the current utility values may be useful for representing patient preferences in economic models of weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists for T2D in Italy.…”