Evidence mapPaperPMID 31646727Full record

Trial reportDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2020

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).

Louis S Matza, Kristina S Boye, Katie D Stewart, Karin S Coyne, Paula K Wullenweber, Katelyn N Cutts, Jessica B Jordan, Qianqian Wang, Maria Yu, Brooke M Currie and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT03724981. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03724981 phase4completed

Crossover Study Comparing the Dulaglutide (Trulicity) Pen and the Semaglutide (Ozempic) Pen

Ran2018Enrolled312Registered outcomes2Posted comparisons2ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2ArmsDulaglutide Pen, Semaglutide Pen
Open the trial in the graph
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Physician Perceptions of Dose Escalation for Type 2 Diabetes Medications in the United States.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Instituting a Successful Discharge Plan for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Challenges and Solutions.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2022
    Article
  15. Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Usage in Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care for the UK and Beyond: A Narrative Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021
    Review
  16. Patient Perceptions of and Preferences Between Characteristics of Injectable Diabetes Treatments.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021
    Article
  17. Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  18. GLP-1 receptor agonists: an updated review of head-to-head clinical studies.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louis S MatzaEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6374-5948
Kristina S BoyeEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Katie D StewartEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Karin S CoyneEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Paula K WullenweberEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Katelyn N CuttsEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Jessica B JordanEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Qianqian WangEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Maria YuEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Brooke M CurrieEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Karen G MalleyEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
K Jack IshakEvidera, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Ryan T HietpasEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Luis-Emilio García-PérezEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3840-787X
Ithaka Harbors · USEli Lilly (United States) · US

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimWhen selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset.

resultsThere were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001).

conclusionsParticipants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Cross-Over StudiesFemaleGlucagon-Like PeptidesHumansHypoglycemic AgentsImmunoglobulin Fc FragmentsMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceRecombinant Fusion ProteinsSemaglutidedulaglutideGlucagon-Like PeptidesHypoglycemic AgentsImmunoglobulin Fc FragmentsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsSemaglutidecrossover studydulaglutideinjection devicespreferencesemaglutidetype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID31646727
PMCPMC7064885
OpenAlexW2982236336

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.