Patient preferences for newer oral therapies in type 2 diabetes. (15th January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Savarese, Gianluigi; Sharma, Abhinav; Pang, Christianne; Wood, Richard; Soleymanlou, Nima
• Is Part Of: International journal of cardiology. Volume 371(2023)
• Page Start: 526
• Page End: 532
• Publication Date: 2023-01-15
• Subjects: SGLT2i -- Empagliflozin -- DPP-4 inhibitor -- GLP-1 -- Sitagliptin -- Type 2 diabetes; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.09.009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-5273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: We aimed to evaluate patient preferences towards three oral antihyperglycaemic therapies using conjoint analysis to determine which attributes may influence use. Methods: We used an online survey, completed by 553 US respondents with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; mean age 64 ± 9 years; 55% had cardiovascular [CV] risk; 27% had CV disease), to present hypothetical, blinded, pairwise, drug profile comparison choices, between different benefit/risk attributes and effect ranges. Attributes were derived from phase 3 trials for empagliflozin 25 mg (SGLT2 inhibitor), oral semaglutide 14 mg (GLP-1 receptor agonist) and sitagliptin 100 mg (DPP-4 inhibitor). Predicted therapy preference outcomes and relative importance of each attribute were calculated (presented as a percentage). Results: Preference score was highest for the profile matching empagliflozin (56%), versus sitagliptin (38%; z-test, P < 0.001 ) and oral semaglutide (6%, z-test, P < 0.001 ). Results were overall consistent in subgroup analyses. Genital infection risk was the most important attribute (relative score: 19% [z-test, P = 0.077 ]). Other important attributes were fasting requirements (15%), weight reduction (15%), risk of vomiting (14%), CV benefit (12%), and risk of nausea (11%). HbA1c reduction (8%) and ability to take medication with other drugs (6%) were considered less important. While blinded to drug name/dose, respondents chose a drug profile similar to empagliflozin (41%) versus sitagliptin (31%), oral semaglutide (11%), or 'none of the options' (17%). Conclusion: While the drug profile comparable to empagliflozin was preferred, CV benefit was not the top patient priority. A shared physician-patient decision model and increased patient education are needed to ensure optimal use of guideline-directed T2DM therapies. Highlights: Novel research measuring patient preferences for new oral anti-diabetic treatment options (80/85 characters) Patients seem to prefer a drug comparable to empagliflozin over sitagliptin or oral semaglutide (83/85 characters) Increasing patient awareness of cardiovascular benefits of newer oral therapies is needed (79/85 characters)