Willingness to pay for diabetes drug therapy in type 2 diabetes patients: based on LEAD clinical programme results

Jendle, Johan; Torffvit, Ole; Ridderstråle, Martin; Ericsson, Åsa; Nilsen, B.; Bøgelund, Mette

doi:10.3111/13696998.2012.703633

Cited by 20 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All studies were cross-sectional, and sample sizes ranged from 129 to 1,355 participants. Half of the studies were performed in the U.S. (9–11,15,16), and the remaining studies included participants from Sweden (12,13), Denmark (7), and the U.K. (8,11,14). Industry/pharmaceutical companies funded the majority of the studies (7,8,11–16) (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preferences for Noninsulin Diabetes Medications: A Systematic Review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVEAn evidence-based synthesis of patient preferences for management of hyperglycemia is needed. Our objective was to systematically review patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications in adults with type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe searched the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit databases for articles published on or before 23 January 2013. We included English-language studies of adult patients with type 2 diabetes that assessed patient preferences for diabetes medication treatment. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Study data and quality were abstracted with standard protocols.RESULTSOf 2,811 titles identified in our original search, 10 articles met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Studies were conducted from 2007 to 2012 among diverse patient populations in the U.S., Sweden, Denmark, and the U.K. Methods used to assess patient preferences included discrete choice experiments (e.g., conjoint analysis), time tradeoff exercises, standard gamble, and patient surveys. Key attributes of diabetes medication associated with patient preferences included treatment benefits (e.g., glycemic control and weight loss/control), treatment burden (e.g., administration, frequency, and cost), and side effects (e.g., weight gain, gastrointestinal effects, and hypoglycemia).CONCLUSIONSVarious clinical and quality of life–related factors influence patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications. Treatment efficacy with regard to glycemic control and weight loss/control and the risk of treatment-related hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal effects are reported to be important drivers of patient treatment selections. Future work is needed to identify practical methods for incorporating patient preferences into treatment decision making and patient-centered care.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preferences for Noninsulin Diabetes Medications: A Systematic Review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aspects of convenience valued can be classified broadly into two categories: Those relating to the administration of an intervention, for example, dosing frequency or mode of administration [13,15,18,19,21,23,24,26,[30][31][32][33][34][36][37][38][39], and those looking at ease of access to an intervention, for example, distance to travel [14,16,17,20,25,28,29,35]. Two studies spanned both categories [22,27].…”

Section: Key Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A substantial proportion of the studies (56%) took the form of a DCE, using a financial or cost-related attribute to derive a WTP valuation for convenience [13,[15][16][17]22,24,25,27,28,32,34,[36][37][38][39].…”

Section: Key Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies identified and reviewed were published between 1996 and 2013, and came from Canada (n ¼ 7) [13][14][15][16][17][18][19], the United States (n ¼ 3) [20][21][22], the United Kingdom (n ¼ 3) [23][24][25], Scotland (n ¼ 3) [26][27][28], Australia (n ¼ 3) [29][30][31], Sweden (n ¼ 2) [32,33], Denmark (n ¼ 1) [34], Germany (n ¼ 1) [35], Italy (n ¼ 1) [36], and Spain (n ¼ 1) [37]. Two studies had multinational perspectives [38,39].…”

Section: Key Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Convenience Matter in Health Care Delivery? A Systematic Review of Convenience-Based Aspects of Process Utility

Higgins

Barnett

Meads³

et al. 2014

Value in Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To systematically review the existing literature on the value associated with convenience in health care delivery, independent of health outcomes, and to try to estimate the likely magnitude of any value found. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for previously published studies that reported preferences for convenience-related aspects of health care delivery in a manner that was consistent with either cost-utility analysis or cost-benefit analysis. Data were analyzed in terms of the methodologies used, the aspects of convenience considered, and the values reported. Results: Literature searches generated 4715 records. Following a review of abstracts or full-text articles, 27 were selected for inclusion. Twentysix studies reported some evidence of convenience-related process utility, in the form of either a positive utility or a positive willingness to pay. The aspects of convenience valued most often were mode of administration (n ¼ 11) and location of treatment (n ¼ 6). The most common valuation methodology was a discrete-choice experiment containing a cost component (n ¼ 15). Conclusions: A preference for convenience-related process utility exists, independent of health outcomes. Given the diverse methodologies used to calculate it, and the range of aspects being valued, however, it is difficult to assess how large such a preference might be, or how it may be effectively incorporated into an economic evaluation. Increased consistency in reporting these preferences is required to assess these issues more accurately.

show abstract

“…The use of discrete choice experiments in reimbursement submissions is not new in Australia, with Davey et al 1998 [29] successfully using WTP for insulin lispro, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) rejecting a WTP claim for Victoza (liraglutide) based on a Scandinavian study by Jendle et al 2012 [30]. As such, this study investigated the key drivers of choice for T2DM treatments for Australian patients and was designed for presentation to the PBAC as part of the exenatide 2 mg once-weekly (Bydureon) reimbursement dossier.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment

Fifer¹,

Rose

Hamrosi³

et al. 2018

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMultiple pharmacotherapy options are available to control blood glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Patients and prescribers may have different preferences for T2DM treatment attributes, such as mode and frequency of administration, based on their experiences and beliefs which may impact adherence. As adherence is a pivotal issue in diabetes therapy, it is important to understand what patients value and how they trade-off the risks and benefits of new treatments. This study aims to investigate the key drivers of choice for T2DM treatments, with a focus on injection frequency, and explore patients’ associated willingness-to-pay.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to present patients with a series of trade-offs between different treatment options, injectable and oral medicines that were made up of 10 differing levels of attributes (frequency and mode of administration, weight change, needle type, storage, nausea, injection site reactions, hypoglycaemic events, instructions with food and cost). A sample of 171 Australian consenting adult T2DM patients, of which 58 were receiving twice-daily injections of exenatide and 113 were on oral glucose-lowering treatments, completed the national online survey. An error components model was used to estimate the relative priority and key drivers of choice patients place on different attributes and to estimate their willingness to pay for new treatments.ResultsInjection frequency, weight change, and nausea were shown to be important attributes for patients receiving injections. Within this cohort, a once-weekly injection generated an additional benefit over a twice-daily injection, equivalent to a weighted total willingness to pay of AUD$22.35 per month.ConclusionsBased on the patient preferences, the importance of frequency of administration and other non-health benefits can be valued. Understanding patient preferences has an important role in health technology assessment, as the identification of the value as well as the importance weighting for each treatment attribute may assist with funding decisions beyond clinical trial outcomes.

show abstract

Willingness to pay for diabetes drug therapy in type 2 diabetes patients: based on LEAD clinical programme results

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Patient Preferences for Noninsulin Diabetes Medications: A Systematic Review

Patient Preferences for Noninsulin Diabetes Medications: A Systematic Review

Does Convenience Matter in Health Care Delivery? A Systematic Review of Convenience-Based Aspects of Process Utility

Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About