PURPOSE: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is the accepted measure of effectiveness for type 1 diabetes therapies. We investigated preferences for measures of diabetes control in addition to HbA1c among adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers of children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Using discrete-choice experiment methodology, surveys for adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers presented choices between hypothetical treatments described by six attributes with varying levels: HbA1c, time in optimal glucose range, weekly number and severity of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, additional disease management time, and additional treatment cost. Choice data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. RESULTS: A total of 300 adults with type 1 diabetes and 400 caregivers completed the survey. Adults and caregivers placed the most importance on reducing hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events. For adults, avoiding 1-5 mild-to-moderate hypoglycemic events (glucose 54-69 mg/dL)/week was five times more important than being a half-point above target HbA1c. Avoiding 1-5 hyperglycemic events (glucose >180 mg/dL)/week was seven times more important than being a half-point above target HbA1c. Additional time in optimal glucose range was as important as a reduction greater than a half-point in HbA1c. Avoiding hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic events was more important than all other outcomes for caregivers of younger children. Caregivers of children >12 years placed relatively more weight on avoiding hypoglycemic events <54 mg/dL than those with younger children and preferred avoiding additional costs. CONCLUSION: Adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers prioritize controlling hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, including mild-to-moderate events. These preferences should be considered in drug development and regulatory decisions.
PURPOSE: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is the accepted measure of effectiveness for type 1 diabetes therapies. We investigated preferences for measures of diabetes control in addition to HbA1c among adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers of children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Using discrete-choice experiment methodology, surveys for adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers presented choices between hypothetical treatments described by six attributes with varying levels: HbA1c, time in optimal glucose range, weekly number and severity of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, additional disease management time, and additional treatment cost. Choice data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. RESULTS: A total of 300 adults with type 1 diabetes and 400 caregivers completed the survey. Adults and caregivers placed the most importance on reducing hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events. For adults, avoiding 1-5 mild-to-moderate hypoglycemic events (glucose 54-69 mg/dL)/week was five times more important than being a half-point above target HbA1c. Avoiding 1-5 hyperglycemic events (glucose >180 mg/dL)/week was seven times more important than being a half-point above target HbA1c. Additional time in optimal glucose range was as important as a reduction greater than a half-point in HbA1c. Avoiding hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic events was more important than all other outcomes for caregivers of younger children. Caregivers of children >12 years placed relatively more weight on avoiding hypoglycemic events <54 mg/dL than those with younger children and preferred avoiding additional costs. CONCLUSION: Adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers prioritize controlling hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, including mild-to-moderate events. These preferences should be considered in drug development and regulatory decisions.
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Kellee M Miller; Mark A Clements; Michael R Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane; Richard Bergenstal; Elizabeth Smith; Beth A Olson; Satish K Garg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jieruo Liu; Rosa Wang; Michael L Ganz; Yurek Paprocki; Doron Schneider; James Weatherall Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Ava S Runge; Lynn Kennedy; Adam S Brown; Abigail E Dove; Brian J Levine; Sophie P Koontz; Varun S Iyengar; Sarah A Odeh; Kelly L Close; Irl B Hirsch; Richard Wood Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2018-04
Authors: David M Maahs; Bruce A Buckingham; Jessica R Castle; Ali Cinar; Edward R Damiano; Eyal Dassau; J Hans DeVries; Francis J Doyle; Steven C Griffen; Ahmad Haidar; Lutz Heinemann; Roman Hovorka; Timothy W Jones; Craig Kollman; Boris Kovatchev; Brian L Levy; Revital Nimri; David N O'Neal; Moshe Philip; Eric Renard; Steven J Russell; Stuart A Weinzimer; Howard Zisser; John W Lum Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Gina Agiostratidou; Henry Anhalt; Dana Ball; Lawrence Blonde; Evgenia Gourgari; Karen N Harriman; Aaron J Kowalski; Paul Madden; Alicia H McAuliffe-Fogarty; Molly McElwee-Malloy; Anne Peters; Sripriya Raman; Kent Reifschneider; Karen Rubin; Stuart A Weinzimer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Alexandria Ratzki-Leewing; Stewart B Harris; Selam Mequanint; Sonja M Reichert; Judith Belle Brown; Jason Edward Black; Bridget L Ryan Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2018-04-24