Literature DB >> 15449636

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

Michael Aristides1, Adèle R Weston, Patrick FitzGerald, Corinne Le Reun, Nikos Maniadakis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess preference and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the insulin mixture Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70, from the patients' perspective, the relative importance of individual treatment attributes was also determined. Differences among five European countries were investigated.
METHODS: Two hundred and ninety patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from five European countries. Of these, 235 were suitable for inclusion in the analysis. Their mean age was 51.3 years and, on average, patients had had diabetes for 11 years. A discrete-choice conjoint analysis was conducted using face-to-face interviews. Treatment attributes, such as timing of injections around meals, 2-hour postprandial control, effect of prandial dosing, frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia, and cost, and levels were derived after a systematic review of all published comparative clinical trial data. Meta-analyses were undertaken where appropriate.
RESULTS: Ninety percent (95% CI 86-93%) of patients would choose Humalog Mix25 over Humulin 30/70, at the same cost. On average, European subjects were willing to pay 111 euros per month more for Humalog Mix25 (95% CI 86.71-156.91 euros). The primary driver was the reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events, contributing 49% of WTP. The convenience of dosing immediately before the meal contributed 37%. Preference results were similar in all five countries, although WTP and sensitivity to increasing cost both varied.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients in all countries showed a preference and WTP for Humalog Mix25 over Humulin 30/70. The main drivers of patient WTP may be of interest to pharmaceutical prescribers, manufacturers, and reimbursement agencies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15449636     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.74007.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  26 in total

Review 1.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Joachim Marti
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-26

Review 3.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Art and Science of Instrument Development for Stated-Preference Methods.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Discrete Choice Experiment Attribute Selection Using a Multinational Interview Study: Treatment Features Important to Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Anna Rydén; Stephanie Chen; Emuella Flood; Beverly Romero; Susan Grandy
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Cost-effectiveness of reducing glycaemic episodes through community pharmacy management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Delia Hendrie; Ted R Miller; Richard J Woodman; Kreshnik Hoti; Jeff Hughes
Journal:  J Prim Prev       Date:  2014-12

7.  Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma?: a comparison of two discrete-choice experiments.

Authors:  Brigitte A B Essers; Debby van Helvoort-Postulart; Martin H Prins; Martino Neumann; Carmen D Dirksen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences.

Authors:  Axel Mühlbacher; Susanne Bethge
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-12-18

9.  Reliability and validity of an instrument for assessing patients' perceptions about medications for diabetes: the PAM-D.

Authors:  Patrick O Monahan; Kathleen A Lane; Risa P Hayes; Colleen A McHorney; David G Marrero
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Jodi B Segal; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.