Patients' preferences for once‐daily oral versus once‐weekly injectable diabetes medications: The REVISE study. Issue 2 (13th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boye, Kristina; Ross, Melissa; Mody, Reema; Konig, Manige; Gelhorn, Heather
• Is Part Of: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. Volume 23:Issue 2(2021)
• Page Start: 508
• Page End: 519
• Publication Date: 2020-12-13
• Subjects: daily oral -- preferences -- type 2 diabetes -- United Kingdom -- United States -- weekly injectable; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Obesity -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; Clinical pharmacology -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/dom.14244
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8902

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: To understand patient preferences for once‐daily oral versus once‐weekly injectable type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medication administration profiles, and reasons for their preferences. Materials and methods: The REVISE study, a cross‐sectional online survey of 600 participants with T2DM (United Kingdom, n = 300; United States, n = 300), elicited general preferences for once‐daily oral versus once‐weekly injectable diabetes medications, and reasons for the preference. Participants then viewed two videos describing the administration procedures for injectable dulaglutide and oral semaglutide, based on the product instructions for use. Thereafter, participants indicated their preference for a once‐weekly injectable or a once‐daily oral medication based on the video descriptions. Participants who switched preferences were asked to identify the reasons influencing their decision. Results: The participants were predominantly male (n = 349; 58.2%), with a mean (SD) age of 64 (11.3) years. Nearly all (n = 557; 92.8%) were taking an oral T2DM medication, and 158 (26.3%) were using an injectable. Initially, 76.5% (n = 459; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73.1–79.9) preferred a once‐daily oral and 23.5% a once‐weekly injectable (n = 141; 95% CI 20.1–26.9; P < 0.0001). After viewing the videos describing the product‐specific administration, the proportions of participants preferring each option were not statistically different (oral semaglutide administration description (n = 315; 52.5%; 95% CI 48.5–56.5; dulaglutide administration description (n = 285; 47.5%; 95% CI 43.5–51.5; NS, P = 0.2207). The most common reason for switching preferences was the timing and steps of administration. Conclusion: Several treatment‐related characteristics, including route, frequency and complexity of the treatment, play a role in patients' preferences for T2DM treatments and should be considered during treatment selection.