Evaluating preferences for profiles of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among injection-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Japan

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate patients’ preferences for the treatment features, safety, and efficacy of two specific glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dulaglutide and liraglutide, among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan.

Methods

In Japan, patients with self-reported T2DM and naive to treatment with self-injectable medications were administered a DCE through an in-person interview. The DCE examined the following 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 logit models and were used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each attribute. A chi-square test was used to determine the differences in preferences for the dulaglutide versus liraglutide profiles.

Results

The final evaluable sample consisted of 182 participants (mean age: 58.9 [standard deviation =10.0] years; 64.3% male; mean body mass index: 26.1 [standard deviation =5.0] kg/m ²). The RI values for the attributes in rank order were dosing frequency (44.1%), type of delivery system (26.3%), frequency of nausea (15.1%), frequency of hypoglycemia (7.4%), weight change (6.2%), and hemoglobin A1c change (1.0%). Significantly more participants preferred the dulaglutide profile (94.5%) compared to the liraglutide profile (5.5%; P<0.0001).

Conclusion

This study elicited the preferences of Japanese T2DM patients for attributes and levels representing the actual characteristics of two existing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. In this comparison, dosing frequency and type of delivery system were the two most important characteristics, accounting for >70% of the RI. These findings are similar to those of a previous UK study, providing information about patients’ preferences that may be informative for patient–clinician treatment discussions.