Table 4

Drug preferences and attributes leading to preference among included studies

Author, yearDrug preference (as measured)Unit of measurement for drug attribute assessmentScaleAttributes (attribute weight)
Boye et al24 2019Dulaglutide: 88.4% Semaglutide: 11.6%Utility (95% CI)0–1 0=death 1=full healthOral : 0.9 (0.89–0.91) oral+dulaglutide device : 0.89 (0.88–0.9) oral+semaglutide device : 0.88 (0.87–0.89)
Brooks et al25 2019Dulaglutide: 20% Semaglutide: 80%Utility coefficient (SE)0 No LimitCardiovascular disease reduction: 1.08 (0.05) HbA1c reduction: 0.60 (0.07) avoidance of nausea: 0.55 (0.08) Method of administration: 0.05 (0.05)
Dibonaventura et al19 2010Sitagliptin: 84.4% Liraglutide: 15.6%Ranked importance (SD)0 No limitEffectiveness of medication (0.6% difference in HBA1c): 4.49 (0.84) Experience of prescribing Physician with medication: 4.11 (0.96) side effects: 3.92 (1.17) method of administration (oral vs injectable): 3.86 (1.23) Out-of-pocket costs of medication: 3.42 (1.43)
Evans et al20 2013Liraglutide: 62.5% Sitagliptin: 37.5%Most important attribute according to preferred drug0%–100%Liraglutide: weight loss, 61% sitagliptin: oral administration, 66%
Gelhorn et al27 2015Dulaglutide: 83.1% Liraglutide: 16.9%Relative importance0%–100%Dosing frequency: 41.6% type of delivery system: 35.5% frequency of nausea: 10.4% wt change: 5.9% HbA1c change: 3.6% low blood sugar events (hypoglycaemic): 3.0%
Gelhorn et al28 2016Dulaglutide: 94.5% Liraglutide: 5.5%Relative importance0%–100%Dosing frequency: 44.1%, type of delivery system: 26.3% frequency of nausea: 15.1% frequency of hypoglycaemic: 7.4% wt change: 6.2% HbA1c change: 1.0%
Hauber et al26 2015NARelative importance0 No limitWeekly injection frequency (vs daily) shorter and thinner needle (vs longer and thicker) eliminating injection site reactions
Jendle et al21 2012Overall participants were willing to pay more for liraglutide compared with all other drugs. (twice daily EXN, RGL, GLI, INS)Prepared to pay an extra Î/day for liraglutide0 No limitChange in body weight RGL: 2.7, INS: 2.35, GLI: 1.87, EXN: −0.46 method of administration EXN:1.04, INS: 0.0, RGL: −1.3, GLI: −0.82 change in HBA1c RGL: 0.95, GLI: 0.43, EXN: 0.27, INS: 0.04 change in systolic BP: INS: 0.65, GLI: 0.46, RGL: 0.34, EXN: −0.2 nausea EXN: 0.08, GLI: −0.03, RGL: −0.04, INS: −0.04 hypoglycaemic rate: EXN: 0.07, GLI: 0.03, INS: 0.03, RGL: 0.0
Lüdemann et al 22 2015Vildagliptin: 51.7% Liraglutide: 48.3%Patient preference according to drug choice0% to 100% (Important and Very important.)§How you take the medication: VG: 71%, LG: 44.8% Side effects (nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea): VG: 67.8%, LG: 41.4% blood sugar lowering: VG: 77.4%, LG: 75.9% wt loss and blood pressure decrease: VG: 64.6%, LG: 65.5%
Matza et al29 2017NAHealth-State utility*0–1 0=death 1=full healthA: 0.88; B: 0.85; C: 0.86; D: 0.86; E: 0.87; F: 0.87; G: 0.87
Matza et al31 2018aNAHealth-State utility*0–1 0=death 1=full healthA: 0.9; B: 0.86; C: 0.87; D: 0.87; E: 0.88; F: 0.88; G: 0.8
Matza et al30 2018bDulaglutide: 70.7%‡ Liraglutide: 22.4% ‡DID-PQ scoresPrefer/strongly prefer drug percentage 0% to 100%Ease of fitting the injection: 72.1% DG ease preparing injection: 67.2% DG time to prepare: 67.2% DG confidence of using correctly: 65.5% DG ease of bringing injection device: 63.8% DG confidence injection: 60.3% DG needle size: 60.4% DG
Matza et al32 2020Dulaglutide: 84.2% Semaglutide: 12.3%Patient preference0%–100%Dulaglutide preference: device's ease of use 92.7%, reasons related to the needle 33.3%, ease of learning to use the device 17.6% liraglutide preference: device can be used multiple times 39.5%, ease of use 26.3%, less generation of plastic waste 26.3%
Polster et al33 2010Liraglutide: 0.97 (CI 0.96 to 0.98) Exenatide Twice daily: 0.94 (CI 0.92 to 0.955)Relative Importance† (Health Utility)0%–100%Efficacy: 39% (0.016) nausea: 30% (0.011) hypoglycaemic: 17% (0.006) dosing schedule: 14% (0.005)
Poon et al23 2018Dulaglutide: 75% Insulin glargine: 25%Relative Importance0%–100%Delivery system: 19.8 % GI effects: 18.2% dosing frequency: 17.7% wt change: 15.6% HbA1change: 14.2% frequency of pancreatitis: 12.3% frequency of hypoglycaemic: 2.2%
Qin et al34 2017aExenatide QW: 78.60% Liraglutide: 21.40%OR (95% CI)0 No limitLess side effects: 2.66 (2.51–2.82) Efficacy (<1.5 pts HbA1c): 2.57 (2.36–2.804) Once weekly dosing frequency: 2.25 (2.13–2.38) multiuse pen: 1.709 (1.55–1.88) needle size, device size and titration were not significant in patient’s preference
Qin et al35 2017bLiraglutide: 21.40% Exenatide QW: 78.60%OR (95% CI)0 No limitLess side effects: 2.66 efficacy (<1.5 Hba1c): 2.57 weekly dosing frequency: 2.25 multiuse pen: 1.709
  • *VG: preferred vildagliptin; LG: preferre dliraglutide

  • †Definition of relative importance relativeimportance is calculated by dividing the difference in the average TTO utilityfor the best and worst levels for each attribute across all possible scenarios and across all respondents by the sum of those mean differences

  • ‡Preference for overall ease of use

  • §Health state A: oral treatment only; health state B: reconstitution, waiting, needle handling; health state C: reconstitution,waiting; health state D: reconstitution, needle handling; health state E: reconstitution; health state F: needle handling; health state G: no inconveniences

  • **Risk of pancreatitis considered in study profile for GLP-1 RA, we advise to take results with caution

  • BID, twice daily; DID-EQ, Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire; EXN, exenatide; GLI, glimepiride; INS, insulin glargine; QW, once weekly; RGL, rosiglitazone.