| Title |
Evaluating preferences for profiles of GLP-1 receptor agonists among injection-naïve type 2 diabetes patients in the UK
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s90842 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather L Gelhorn, Jiat-Ling Poon, Evan W Davies, Rosirene Paczkowski, Sarah E Curtis, Kristina S Boye |
| Abstract |
To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate preferences for the actual treatment features and overall profiles of two injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (dulaglutide and liraglutide) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the UK. In-person interviews were conducted in the UK to administer a DCE to patients with self-reported T2DM, naïve to treatment with injectable medications. The DCE examined six attributes of T2DM treatment each described by two levels: "dosing frequency," "hemoglobin A1c change," "weight change," "type of delivery system," "frequency of nausea," and "frequency of hypoglycemia." Part-worth utilities were estimated using random effects logit models and were used to calculate relative importance (RI) values for each attribute. A chi-square test was used to determine differences in preferences for dulaglutide versus liraglutide profiles. A total of 243 participants [mean age: 60.5 (standard deviation 10.9) years; 76.1% male; mean body mass index: 29.8 (standard deviation 5.4) kg/m(2)] completed the study. RI values for the attributes in rank order were: "dosing frequency" (41.6%), "type of delivery system" (35.5%), "frequency of nausea" (10.4%), "weight change" (5.9%), "hemoglobin A1c change" (3.6%), and "frequency of hypoglycemia" (3.0%). Significantly more participants preferred the dulaglutide profile (83.1%) compared with the liraglutide profile (16.9%; P<0.0001). This study elicited patients' preferences for attributes and levels representing the actual characteristics of two specific glucagon-like peptide-1 medications. In this context, dosing frequency and type of delivery system were most important, accounting for over 75% of the RI. While previous studies have identified efficacy as highly important in T2DM medication decisions, this study suggests that when differences in efficacy between medications are small, other treatment features (eg, dosing frequency and delivery system) are of much greater importance to patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,438,425
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,046
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,062
of 295,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#30
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.