Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: A multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment

Value in Health

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 442-454

  Aristides, Michael ^a   Weston, Adèle R ^b,c   FitzGerald, Patrick ^b,d   Le Reun, Corinne ^b   Maniadakis, Nikos ^e  

^a M TAG Limited   (United Kingdom)

^b M TAG Pty Ltd   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^e ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Discrete choice experiment; Humalog Mix25; Humulin 30 70; Insulin; Type 2 diabetes; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

HUMALOG MIX25; HUMAN INSULIN; HUMULIN 30 70; INSULIN LISPRO; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE CONJOINT ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HYPOGLYCEMIA; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; MULTICENTER STUDY; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; PUBLICATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 3843136073     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.74007.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Howey DC, Bowsher RR, Brunelle RL, Woodworth JR. [Lys (B28), Pro (B29)]-human insulin: a rapidly absorbed analogue of human insulin. Diabetes 1994;43:396-402.
2. Heise T, Weyer C, Serwas A, et al. Time-action profiles of novel premixed preparations of insulin lispro and NPL insulin. Diabetes Care 1998;21:800-3.
3. Roach P, Trautmann M, Arora V, et al. Improved postprandial blood glucose control and reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia during treatment with two novel insulin lispro-protamine formulations, insulin Lispro Mix25 and Insulin Lispro Mix50. Clin Ther 1999;21:523-34.
4. Roach P, Yue L, Arora V. Improved postprandial glycaemic control during treatment with Humalog Mix25, a novel protamine-based insulin lispro formulation. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1258-61.
5. Brash PD, Shaw K. Reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia with twice daily Humalog Mix25 compared to human insulin 30/70 in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Med 2001;18 (Suppl. 2):A41.
6. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology: an application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999;15:340-51.
7. San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Appl Economics 2000; 32:823-33.
8. Fraenkel L, Bodardus S, Wittink DR. Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis with adaptive conjoint analysis. Med Care 2001;39:1203-16.
9. Meister H, Lausberg I, Walger M, von Wedel H. Using conjoint analysis to examine the importance of hearing aid attributes. Ear Hear 2001;22:142-50.
10. Shackley P, Slack R, Michaels J. Vascular patients' preferences for local treatment: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 2001;6:151-7.
11. Telser H, Zweifel P. Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ 2002;11:129-39.
12. Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M et al. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness-to-pay and preference for the features for raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20:775-84.
13. Weston AR, FitzGerald P. Discrete-choice conjoint analysis to derive willingness-to-pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics (in press).
14. Ryan M. Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: the Application of Conjoint Analysis. London: Office of Health Economics, 1996.
15. Stata Corporation. Statistical Software; Release, 6.0. College Station, TX, USA, 1997.
16. Liang K-Y, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73:13-22.
17. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley 1989.
18. Pendergast JF, Gange SJ, Newton MA et al. A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response data. Int Statistics Rev 1996;64:89-118.
19. Huber PJ. The behaviour of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium in Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967;1:221-53.
20. Lancaster K. Consumer Demand: a New Approach. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.
21. Herson J. Fieller's theorem vs delta method for significance intervals for ratios. J Stat Comput Sim 1975;3:265-74.
22. Efron B, Tisbshirani R. An Introduction to Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
23. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to value surgical versus medical management of miscarriage. Health Econ 1997;6:261-73.
24. Dranitsaris G, Longo CJ, Grossman LD. The economic value of a new insulin preparation, Humalog Mix25 - measured by a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18:275-87.
25. Wedel M, Kamakura WA. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Boston: Kluwer, 1999.