Willingness to pay for health improvements associated with anti-diabetes treatments for people with type 2 diabetes

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 917-923

  Jendle, J ^a,b   Torffvit, O ^c   Ridderstrale M ^d   Lammert, M ^e   Ericsson, A ^f   Bogelund M ^g  

^a Karlstad Hospital   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

^f Novo Nordisk Scandinavia   (Sweden)

^g NONE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Diabetes; Discrete choice experiment; HbA1c; Hypoglycaemia; Patient preference; Weight; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; GLUCOSE; HEMOGLOBIN A1C;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DRUG COST; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HYPOGLYCEMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAUSEA; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; SWEDEN; WEIGHT GAIN; WEIGHT REDUCTION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BODY WEIGHT; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEMOGLOBIN A, GLYCOSYLATED; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIA; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; NAUSEA; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SWEDEN;

EID: 77949524816     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: 14734877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/03007991003657867     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Russell-Jones D, Vaag A, Schmitz O, et al. Liraglutide vs insulin glargine and placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (LEAD-5 met\+SU): a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2009;52:2046-2055
2. Buse JB, Rosenstock J, Sesti G, et al. Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6). Lancet 2009;374:39-47
3. Marre M, Shaw J, Brändle M, et al. Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, added to a sulphonylurea over 26 weeks produces greater improvements in glycaemic and weight control compared with adding rosiglitazone or placebo in subjects with Type 2 diabetes (LEAD-1 SU). Diabet Med 2009;26:268-278
4. Zinman B, Gerich J, Buse JB, et al. Efficacy and safety of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide in combination with metformin and thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes (LEAD-4 Met\+TZD). Diabetes Care 2009;32:1224-1230
5. Nauck M, Frid A, Hermansen K, et al. Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study. Diabetes Care 2009;32:84-90
6. Garber A, Henry R, Ratner R, et al. Liraglutide versus glimepiride monotherapy for type 2 diabetes (LEAD-3 Mono): a randomised, 52-week, phase III, double-blind, parallel-treatment trial. Lancet 2009;373:473-481
7. Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, et al. 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;7:442-454
8. Eliasson B, Eeg-Olofsson K, Cederholm J, et al Antihyperglycaemic treatment of type 2 diabetes: results from a national diabetes register. Diabetes Metab 2007;33:269-276
9. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-1533
10. 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;2:55-64
11. Kuhfeld WF. Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice Conjoint and Graphical Techniques. SAS Institute 2005
12. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997;6:261-273
13. Barker N. A Practical Introduction to the Bootstrap Using the SAS System. Wallingford, UK: Oxford Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2005
14. Hoelzel W, Weykamp C, Jeppsson JO, et al. IFCC reference system for measurement of hemoglobin A1c in human blood and the national standardization schemes in the United States, Japan, and Sweden: a method-comparison study. Clin Chem 2004;50:166-174
15. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;4:263-291
16. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 1992;5:297-323
17. Liu JT, Tsou MW, Hammitt JK. Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment. Health Policy 2009;91:211-218
18. Rubin RR, Peyrot M, Siminerio LM. Health care and patient-reported outcomes: results of the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) study. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1249-1255
19. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998;352:837-853
20. Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Diabetes Care 1999; 22:1125-1136
21. Funnell MM. The Diabetes, Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) study. Clin Diabetes 2006;24:154-155
22. Skovlund SE, Peyrot M. The Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) program: a new approach to improving outcomes of diabetes care. Diabetes Spectrum 2005;18:136-142
23. Lazaro A, Barberan R, Rubio E. Private and social time preferences for health and money: an empirical estimation. Health Econ 2001;10:351-356
24. Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP. Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: a review. Leisure Science 1990; 12:9-32
25. Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2009; 18:389-401