Preferences for medication attributes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Volumn 15, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 802-809

  Gelhorn, H L ^a   Stringer, S M ^a   Brooks, A ^a   Thompson, C ^a   Monz, B U ^b   Boye, K S ^c   Hach, T ^b   Lund, S S ^b   Palencia, R ^b  

^a UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

^b BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH AND CO KG   (Germany)

^c ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Patient preference; Type 2 diabetes

Indexed keywords

ORAL ANTIDIABETIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; DIARRHEA; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; FEMALE; GENITAL TRACT INFECTION; HUMAN; HYPOGLYCEMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAUSEA; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; SIDE EFFECT; UNITED KINGDOM; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; WEIGHT CHANGE; WEIGHT GAIN; WEIGHT REDUCTION;

DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; TYPE 2 DIABETES;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ADULT; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIA; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INTERNET; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PILOT PROJECTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; WEIGHT GAIN; WEIGHT LOSS;

EID: 84880766523     PISSN: 14628902     EISSN: 14631326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/dom.12091     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Rull JA, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Rojas R, Rios-Torres JM, Gomez-Perez FJ, Olaiz G. Epidemiology of type 2 diabetes in Mexico. Arch Med Res[Rev]. 2005; 36: 188-196.
2. Marshall MC Jr. Diabetes in African Americans. Postgrad Med J 2005; 81: 734-740.
3. Leisinger C, Doring A, Heier M, Thorand B, Lowel H. Type 2 diabetes mellitus in Augsburg-an epidemiological overview. Gesundheitswesen 2005; 67(Suppl.1): S103-109.
4. Srinivasan B, Taub N, Khunti K, Davies M. Diabetes: glycaemic control in type 2. Br Med J Clin Evid 2008; 3: 1-28.
5. International Diabetes Federation. Diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. Global burden: prevalence and projections, 2010 and 2030. 2011.
6. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB et al. Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 193-203.
7. Neumiller JJ, White JR Jr, Campbell RK. Sodium-glucose co-transport inhibitors: progress and therapeutic potential in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs 2010; 70: 377-385.
8. Bailey CJ, Day C. SGLT2 inhibitors: glucuretic treatment for type 2 diabetes. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis. 2010; 10: 193-199.
9. 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.
10. Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products-liraglutide and-for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ 2010; 13: 655-661.
11. Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Sauriol L, Lescrauwaet B. Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 2243-2245.
12. Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L et al. A valuation of patients' willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25: 359-366.
13. Matza LS, Boye KS, Yurgin N et al. Utilities and disutilities for type 2 diabetes treatment-related attributes. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 1251-1265.
14. Boye KS, Matza LS, Walter KN, Van Brunt K, Palsgrove AC, Tynan A. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ 2011; 12: 219-230.
15. Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Le Reun C, 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: 442-454.
16. Orme B. Interpreting the Results of Conjoint Analysis. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd edn. Madison: Research Publishers LLC, 2010.
17. Casciano R, Malangone E, Ramachandran A, Gagliardino JJ. A quantitative assessment of patient barriers to insulin. Int J Clin Pract 2011; 65: 408-414.
18. 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: 416-424.
19. Jendle J, Torffvit O, Ridderstråle M, Lammert M, Ericsson A, Bogelund M. Swedish patients with type 2 diabetes show willingness-to-pay for health improvements including weight loss, reduction in hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control. Diabetologia 2009; 52(Suppl. 1): S407 [abstract 1039].
20. Kuhfeld WF. Marketing research methods in SAS: Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. October 1, 2010. SAS 9.2 Edition. MR-2010. Available from URL: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2012.
21. Zanutto E, Conner C, Polster M, McDonald SS, Hammer M. Evaluation of GLP-1 product attributes in treating people with type-2 diabetes in US: comparing time-tradeoff and willingness-to-pay methodologies. Value in Health 2009; 12: A33.
22. Atkinson MJ, Zhang Q, Smith DD, Boltri JM, Smith WD. Better %HbA1c control among type 2 diabetes patients is associated with higher patient-reported satisfaction with treatment: a meta-analysis of trial results. Diabetologia 2009; 52(S1): S406.
23. 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: 917-923.