Patient perceptions of injection devices used with dulaglutide and liraglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes
Patient perceptions of injection devices used with dulaglutide and liraglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/03007995.2018.1465903
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Jordan, Jessica
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matza, Louis S.;Boye, Kristina S.;Jordan, Jessica
目的：利拉鲁肽和度那路肽具有相似的降糖疗效和安全性。然而，它们在治疗给药和注射设备方面有所不同。这项研究的目的是检查和比较患者对利拉鲁肽和度绿肽注射器使用的感知。方法：从美国各地招募接受利拉鲁肽或度绿肽治疗的2型糖尿病患者。患者完成糖尿病注射装置体验问卷(DID-EQ)，以评估他们目前的注射装置。有过这两种治疗经验的患者还完成了糖尿病注射设备偏好问卷(DID-PQ)，以报告两种设备之间的偏好。在控制协变量的同时，采用ANCOVA方法比较度拉卢肽和利拉鲁肽患者的DID-EQ得分。结果：共招募了来自49个州的404名患者(平均年龄=60.7岁；54.0%的女性；204名利拉鲁肽；200名杜拉鲁德)。两个治疗组的平均DID-EQ项目得分都很高，从3.48到3.90(满分为4分)。ANCOVA发现，在评估易用性(3.82比3.73，p=.040)和便利性(3.79比3.66，p=.004)的DID-EQ全球项目上，度卢肽的得分明显高于利拉鲁肽。在58名同时使用两种装置的患者中，在DID-PQ的每一项上，更多的患者报告更倾向于使用利拉鲁肽装置而不是利拉鲁肽装置。结论：高DID-EQ分数表明对利拉鲁肽和利拉卢肽注射装置都有积极的看法。在易用性和便利性方面，度路肽装置的得分略高于利拉鲁肽装置。
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.