Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3/2014

01-09-2014 | Systematic Review

The Patient Perspective of Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Research

Authors: Lill-Brith von Arx, Trine Kjær

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The importance of understanding the perspective of patients towards their own care is increasingly recognized, both in clinical practice and in pharmaceutical drug development. Stated preference methods to assess the preference of patients towards different aspects of diabetes treatment have now been applied for over a decade.

Objective

Our goal was to examine how stated preference methods are applied in diabetes care, and to evaluate the value of this information in developing the patient perspective in clinical and policy decisions.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The information sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, Current Contents, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit.

Results

Three contingent valuation studies and 11 discrete choice experiments were retrieved. The majority of studies were conducted from 2009 onwards, but some date back to 1998. The reasons provided for applying the stated preference methods were to help differentiate between products, or to enable inclusion of the patient’s perspective in treatment decisions. The main aspects of treatment examined were related to glucose control, adverse events, and drug administration. The majority of patients preferred glucose control over avoiding minor hypoglycemic events. Patient willingness to pay was above $US100/month for glucose control, avoiding immediate health hazards such as nausea, and oral or inhaled drug administration. Preference towards drug administration was highly associated with previous experience with injectable diabetes medicine.

Conclusions

The ability of a drug to lower glucose levels plays a decisive role in the choice between alternative treatments. Future research should strive to develop questionnaire designs relevant for the decision context of the study. That is, if the aim is to foster shared decision making, in clinical practice or drug development, this should guide the study design. Furthermore, concise reporting of all study dimensions—from the qualitative prework to the analysis stage—is warranted.
Literature
1.
Mitka M. Monitoring glycemic control in diabetes: new standardized reference measure a useful tool. JAMA. 2007;298(19):2252.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Davis S, Alonso MD. Hypoglycemia as a barrier to glycemic control. J Diabetes Complicat. 2004;18(1):60–8.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, Dhingra V, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283–97.PubMedCrossRef
4.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes: 2014. Diabetes Care 2014;37 Suppl 1:S14–80.
5.
Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D, Heine RJ. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Snow R, Humphrey C, Sandall J. What happens when patients know more than their doctors? Experiences of health interactions after diabetes patient education: a qualitative patient-led study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(11):e003583.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Golin CE, DiMatteo MR, Gelberg L. The role of patient participation in the doctor visit. Implications for adherence to diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(10):1153–64.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Gabbay M, Shiels C, Bower P, Sibbald B, King M, Ward E. Patient-practitioner agreement: does it matter? Psychol Med. 2003;33(2):241–51.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Cvengros JA, Christensen AJ, Hillis SL, Rosenthal GE. Patient and physician attitudes in the health care context: attitudinal symmetry predicts patient satisfaction and adherence. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(3):262–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):163–80.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Chin MH, Drum ML, Jin L, Shook ME, Huang ES, Meltzer DO. Variation in treatment preferences and care goals among older patients with diabetes and their physicians. Med Care. 2008;46(3):275–86.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:125.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
Zulman DM, Kerr EA, Hofer TP, Heisler M, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Patient-provider concordance in the prioritization of health conditions among hypertensive diabetes patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(5):408–14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Casparie AF, van der Waal MA. Differences in preferences between diabetic patients and diabetologists regarding quality of care: a matter of continuity and efficiency of care? Diabet Med. 1995;12(9):828–32.PubMedCrossRef
16.
van der Waal MA, Casparie AF, Lako CJ. Quality of care: a comparison of preferences between medical specialists and patients with chronic diseases. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(5):643–9.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037–40.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ. 2001;322(7285):519–23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
Basch E. Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(5):397–400.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the food and drug administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6(5):522–31.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Hareendran A, Gnanasakthy A, Winnette R, Revicki D. Capturing patients’ perspectives of treatment in clinical trials/drug development. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(1):23–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2002.CrossRef
23.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.PubMed
26.
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a users guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Market Res 1983;20:350–67.
29.
Lin PJ, Cangelosi MJ, Lee DW, Neumann PJ. Willingness to pay for diagnostic technologies: a review of the contingent valuation literature. Value Health. 2013;16(5):797–805.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Oremus M, Tarride JE. A systematic review of the use of contingent valuation in Alzheimer’s disease research. Dementia. 2008;7(4):461–80.CrossRef
31.
Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7(4):313–26.PubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
Patrick AR, Fischer MA, Choudhry NK, Shrank WH, Seeger JD, Liu J, et al. Trends in insulin initiation and treatment intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(2):320–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Gill S, Simpson S, Meneilly G, Queiroz RH, et al. A discrete choice experiment evaluation of patients’ preferences for different risk, benefit, and delivery attributes of insulin therapy for diabetes management. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:433–40.PubMedCentralPubMed
36.
Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, Gill S, Simpson S, Meneilly G, et al. Socioeconomic differences in preferences and willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery systems in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(9):567–73.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, Gill S, Simpson SH, Meneilly GS, et al. A valuation of patients’ willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(3):359–66.PubMedCrossRef
38.
van Gils PF, Lambooij MS, Flanderijn MH, van den Berg M, de Wit GA, Schuit AJ, et al. Willingness to participate in a lifestyle intervention program of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a conjoint analysis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:537–46.PubMedCentralPubMed
39.
van Gils PF, Lambooij MS, Struijs JN, Flanderijn MH, van den Berg M, van den Berg B. Factors influencing valuation of- and willingness to participate in-A lifestyle intervention: an exploratory conjoint analysis with diabetes type 2 patients. Value Health. 2010;13(7):A296.CrossRef
40.
Schiotz M, Bogelund M, Almdal T, Willaing I. Discrete choice as a method for exploring education preferences in a Danish population of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(2):217–25.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Chang K. Comorbidities, quality of life and patients’ willingness to pay for a cure for type 2 diabetes in Taiwan. Public Health. 2010;124(5):284–94.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Yen SH. Characterising patients’ preferences for information in doctor-patient interactions. Malays J Econ Stud. 2006;43(1–2):1–18.
43.
Jacobsson F, Johannesson M, Borgquist L. Is altruism paternalistic? Econ J. 2007;117(520):761–81.CrossRef
44.
Chen TT, Chung KP, Huang HC, Man LN, Lai MS. Using discrete choice experiment to elicit doctors’ preferences for the report card design of diabetes care in Taiwan—a pilot study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(1):14–20.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Taylor S, Hourihan F, Krass I, Armour C. Measuring consumer preference for models of diabetes care delivered by pharmacists. Pharm Pract. 2009;7(4):195–204.
46.
Basoglu N, Daim TU, Topacan U. Determining patient preferences for remote monitoring. J Med Syst. 2012;36(3):1389–401.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Hoerger TJ, Johnson FR, Manjunath R, Mansfield C, Clayton LJ, Zhang P. High-risk individuals’ stated preferences and willingness-to-pay for diabetes risk-reduction programs. Diabetes. 2005;54(Suppl. 1):A611.
48.
Al-Haddad M, Ibrahim MMI, Sulaiman SAS, Shafie AA, Maarup N. Cost benefit analysis of the diabetes self management program at a university health centre in Malaysia. J Clin Diagn Res. 2010;4(3):2521–30.
49.
Bamer JC. Patient willingness to pay for diabetes disease state management programs. J Manag Pharm Care. 2001;1(2):85–95.
50.
Cairns JA, Van Der Pol MM. The estimation of marginal time preference in a UK-wide sample (TEMPUS) project. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(1):i-iv, 1–83.
51.
Sadri H. Contingent valuation of inhaled insulin: a canadian perspective. J Med Econ. 2007;10(4):475–87.CrossRef
52.
Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Sauriol L, Lescrauwaet B. Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(9):2243–5.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Reun CL, Maniadakis N. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2004;7(4):442–54.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Bøgelund M, Vilsboll T, Faber J, Henriksen JE, Gjesing RP, Lammert M. Patient preferences for diabetes management among people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark—a discrete choice experiment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(11):2175–83.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Jendle J, Torffvit O, Ridderstrale M, Lammert M, Ericsson A, Bogelund M. Willingness to pay for health improvements associated with anti-diabetes treatments for people with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(4):917–23.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Falvey H. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with Type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet Med. 2009;26(4):416–24.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Davey P, Grainger D, MacMillan J, Rajan N, Aristides M, Dobson M. Economic-evaluation of insulin lispro versus neutral (regular) insulin therapy using a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(3):347–58.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Casciano R, Malangone E, Ramachandran A, Gagliardino JJ. A quantitative assessment of patient barriers to insulin. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(4):408–14.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Gelhorn HL, Stringer SM, Brooks A, Thompson C, Monz BU, Boye KS, et al. Preferences for medication attributes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;15(9):802–9.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Pinto SL, Holiday-Goodman M, Black CD, Lesch D. Identifying factors that affect patients’ willingness to pay for inhaled insulin. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2009;5(3):253–61.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Sadri H, MacKeigan LD, Leiter LA, Einarson TR. Willingness to pay for inhaled insulin: a contingent valuation approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(12):1215–27.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Lloyd A, Nafees B, Barnett AH, Heller S, Ploug UJ, Lammert M, et al. Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2011;33(9):1258–67.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products—liraglutide and exenatide—for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):655–61.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported?: an update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.PubMedCrossRef
65.
66.
Walker EA, Usher JA. Understanding and enhancing adherence in adults with diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2003;3(2):141–8.PubMedCrossRef
67.
68.
Tests of Glycemia in Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(suppl 1):s106–8.
69.
Iqbal N, Morgan C, Maksoud H, Idris I. Improving patients’ knowledge on the relationship between HbA1c and mean plasma glucose improves glycaemic control among persons with poorly controlled diabetes. Ann Clin Biochem. 2008;45(5):504–7.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Hanas R, John G, On behalf of the International. Consensus statement on the worldwide standardization of the hemoglobin A1C measurement. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(8):1903–4.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
71.
Eichler HG, Abadie E, Breckenridge A, Flamion B, Gustafsson LL, Leufkens H, et al. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator’s perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(7):495–506.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Evans M, Khunti K, Mamdani M, Galbo-Jorgensen CB, Gundgaard J, Bogelund M, et al. Health-related quality of life associated with daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemic events: a time trade-off survey in five countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
73.
Currie CJ, Morgan CL, Poole CD, Sharplin P, Lammert M, McEwan P. Multivariate models of health-related utility and the fear of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(8):1523–34.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Polonsky WH, Davis CL, Jacobson AM, Anderson BJ. Correlates of hypoglycemic fear in type I and type II diabetes mellitus. Health Psychol. 1992;11(3):199–202.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Garber AJ. Long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: a review of their efficacy and tolerability. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(Supplement 2):S279–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
76.
Hermansen K, Mortensen LS. Bodyweight changes associated with antihyperglycaemic agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drug Saf. 2007;30(12):1127–42.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Russell-Jones D, Khan R. Insulin-associated weight gain in diabetes–causes, effects and coping strategies. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2007;9(6):799–812.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Larkin ME, Capasso VA, Chen CL, Mahoney EK, Hazard B, Cagliero E, et al. Measuring psychological insulin resistance: barriers to insulin use. Diabetes Educ. 2008;34(3):511–7.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Fu AZ, Qiu Y, Radican L. Impact of fear of insulin or fear of injection on treatment outcomes of patients with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1413–20.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T, Skovlund SE, Snoek FJ, Matthews DR, et al. Resistance to insulin therapy among patients and providers: results of the cross-national diabetes attitudes, wishes, and needs (DAWN) study. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(11):2673–9.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ. 1996;18(3):243–53.CrossRef
82.
Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Hansen HP, Draborg E, Kristensen FB. Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients’ perspectives in health policy design and decision making. Patient. 2011;4(3):143–52.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo SA, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):334–40.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):30–5.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P. The patients’ perspective is key, also in research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):581–3.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMed
88.
Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.PubMed
89.
Coast J, McDonald R, Baker R. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9(3):171–6.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Patient Perspective of Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Research
Authors
Lill-Brith von Arx
Trine Kjær
Publication date
01-09-2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0057-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3/2014 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

New Insight into the Role of Patients During Medical Appointments: A Synthesis of Three Qualitative Studies

Leading Article

Measuring Patient Experience: Concepts and Methods

Original Research Article

Examining Patients’ Perceptions of Care to Identify Opportunities for Quality Improvement in Psychiatric Inpatient Hospitals

Commentary

Time to Embrace a New Patient-Centered Care Rallying Cry: “Why Not?”

Original Research Article

Does Diabetes Have an Impact on Health-State Utility? A Study of Asians in Singapore

Original Research Article

Development and Validation of the AFSymp™: An Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Measure of Patient-Reported Symptoms
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits