Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

Clinical Therapeutics

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1258-1267

  Lloyd, Andrew ^a   Nafees, Beenish ^a   Barnett, Anthony H ^b   Heller, Simon ^c   Ploug, Uffe J ^d   Lammert, Morten ^d   Bøgelund, Mette ^e  

^a UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

^e Incentive Partners ^*  (Denmark)

Author keywords

Diabetes; Long acting insulin therapy; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; INSULIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INSULIN TREATMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; WEIGHT GAIN;

ADULT; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INSULIN, LONG-ACTING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PILOT PROJECTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80052985877     PISSN: 01492918     EISSN: 1879114X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.07.017     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Klein O., Lynge J., Endahl L., et al. Albumin-bound basal insulin analogues (insulin detemir and NN344): comparable time-action profiles but less variability than insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007, 9:290-299.
2. Philis-Tsimikas A., Charpentier G., Clauson P., et al. Comparison of once-daily insulin detemir with NPH insulin added to a regimen of oral antidiabetic drugs in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Clin Ther 2006, 28:1569-1581.
3. Hermansen K., Davies M., Derezinski T., et al. A 26-week, randomized, parallel, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin as add-on therapy to oral glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006, 29:1269-1274.
4. Peyrot M., Rubin R.R., Lauritzen T., 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, 28:2673-2679.
5. Perros P., Deary I.J., Frier B.M. Factors influencing preference of insulin regimen in people with type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1998, 39:23-29.
6. Hauber A.B., Johnson F.R., Sauriol L., Lescrauwaet B. Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005, 28:2243-2245.
7. Ryan M., Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000, 320:1530-1533.
8. 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.
9. Aristides M., Weston A.R., 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.
10. Lloyd A., McIntosh E., Price M. The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 2005, 23:1167-1181.
11. Lloyd A., Doyle S., Dewilde S., Turk F. Preferences and utilities for the symptoms of moderate to severe allergic asthma. Eur J Health Econ 2008, 9:275-284.
12. Clark M., Moro D., Szczepura A. Balancing patient preferences and clinical needs: community versus hospital based care for patients with suspected DVT. Health Policy 2009, 90:313-319.
13. Waugh N., Cummins E., Royle P., et al. Newer agents for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2010, 14:1-248.
14. Nafees B., Lloyd A., Kennedy-Martin T., Hynd S. How diabetes and insulin therapy affects the lives of people with type 1 diabetes. Eur Diabetes Nursing 2006, 3:92-97.
15. Sloane N.J. A library of orthogonal arrays Accessed July 18th 2011. http://www.research.att.com/~njas/oadir/index.html.
16. Ai C., Norton E.C. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 2003, 80:123-129.
17. Lazaro A., Barberan R., Rubio E. Private and social time preferences for health and money: an empirical estimation. Health Econ 2001, 10:351-356.
18. Davey P., Grainger D., MacMillan J., et al. Economic evaluation of insulin lispro versus neutral (regular) insulin therapy using a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1998, 13:347-358.
19. Dranitsaris G., Longo C.J., Grossman L.D. The economic value of a new insulin preparation, Humalog Mix 25. Measured by a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 2000, 18:275-287.
20. Louviere J.J., Timmermans H.J. Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: a review. Leisure Science 1990, 12:9-32.
21. Ryan M., Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2009, 18:389-401.
22. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resource Econ 2005, 30:313-325.