Patient perceptions of injection devices used with dulaglutide and liraglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes. (3rd August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Matza, Louis S.; Boye, Kristina S.; Currie, Brooke M.; Paczkowski, Rosirene; Lando, Laura F.; Mody, Reema; Jordan, Jessica
• Is Part Of: Current medical research and opinion. Volume 34:Number 8(2018)
• Page Start: 1457
• Page End: 1464
• Publication Date: 2018-08-03
• Subjects: Injection device -- type 2 diabetes -- dulaglutide -- liraglutide -- diabetes injection device experience questionnaire -- diabetes injection device preference questionnaire; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1465903
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-7995

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Liraglutide and dulaglutide have demonstrated similar glycemic efficacy and safety. However, they differ in treatment administration and injection devices. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare patient perceptions of the injection devices used with liraglutide and dulaglutide. Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide or dulaglutide were recruited from across the US. Patients completed the Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) to rate their current injection device. Patients who had experience with both treatments also completed the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ) to report preferences between the two devices. ANCOVAs were conducted to compare DID-EQ scores between dulaglutide and liraglutide patients, while controlling for covariates. Descriptive statistics are presented for preferences reported on the DID-PQ. Results: A total of 404 patients were recruited from 49 states (mean age = 60.7 years; 54.0% female; 204 liraglutide; 200 dulaglutide). Mean DID-EQ item scores for both treatments were high, ranging from 3.48 to 3.90 on a 4 point scale. ANCOVAs found significantly higher scores for dulaglutide than liraglutide on DID-EQ global items assessing ease of use (3.82 vs. 3.73, p = .040) and convenience (3.79 vs. 3.66, p = .004). Among the 58 patients who had used both devices, more patients reported a preference for the dulaglutide device than the liraglutide device on every item of the DID-PQ. Conclusions: High DID-EQ scores indicate positive perceptions of both the liraglutide and dulaglutide injection devices. The dulaglutide device was associated with slightly higher scores for ease of use and convenience than the liraglutide device.