Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Published in:

01-06-2011 | Original Paper

Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes

Authors: Kristina S. Boye, Louis S. Matza, Kimberly N. Walter, Kate Van Brunt, Andrew C. Palsgrove, Aodan Tynan

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 3/2011

Abstract

Introduction

Although cost-utility models are frequently used to estimate treatment outcomes for type 2 diabetes, utilities are not available for key attributes of injectable treatments. The purpose of this study was to identify the utility or disutility of three injection-related attributes (dose frequency, dose flexibility, injection site reaction) that may influence patient preference.

Methods

Patients with type 2 diabetes in Scotland completed standard gamble (SG) interviews to assess the utility of hypothetical health states and their own current health state. The EQ-5D, PGWB, IWQOL-Lite, and QIDS were also administered. Construct validity and differences among health states were examined.

Results

A total of 151 patients completed interviews. Of the three injection-related attributes, dose frequency was the only attribute with a statistically significant impact on utility (in a multiple regression model, p = 0.01). Weekly injections were associated with an average added utility of 0.023 in comparison to everyday injections. Flexible dosing and injection site reactions resulted in somewhat smaller utility shifts that were in the expected directions (+0.006 and −0.011, respectively). SG utility of current health (mean = 0.897) demonstrated construct validity through statistically significant correlations with patient-reported outcome measures.

Discussion

The three injection attributes were associated with small utility shifts in the expected directions. Dose frequency appears to be the most important of the three attributes from the patients’ perspective. The vignette-based SG approach was feasible and useful for assessing added utility or disutility of injection-related attributes associated with treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Arulmozhi, D.K., Portha, B.: GLP-1 based therapy for type 2 diabetes. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 28, 96–108 (2006)PubMedCrossRef

Pratley, R.E., Gilbert, M.: Targeting incretins in type 2 diabetes: role of GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors. Rev. Diabet. Stud. 5, 73–94 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

Srinivasan, B.T., Jarvis, J., Khunti, K., Davies, M.J.: Recent advances in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review. Postgrad. Med. J. 84, 524–531 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

Torrance, G.W.: Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ. 5, 1–30 (1986)PubMedCrossRef

Torrance, G.W.: Designing and conducting cost-utility analysis. In: Spilker, B. (eds.) Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia (1996)

Clarke, P.M., Gray, A.M., Briggs, A., Stevens, R.J., Matthews, D.R., Holman, R.R.: Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72). Diabetologia 48, 868–877 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

Matza, L.S., Boye, K.S., Yurgin, N., et al.: Utilities and disutilities for type 2 diabetes treatment-related attributes. Qual. Life Res. 16, 1251–1265 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

McEwan, P., Peters, J.R., Bergenheim, K., Currie, C.J.: Evaluation of the costs and outcomes from changes in risk factors in type 2 diabetes using the Cardiff stochastic simulation cost-utility model (DiabForecaster). Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 22, 121–129 (2006)PubMedCrossRef

Palmer, A.J., Roze, S., Valentine, W.J., et al.: The CORE diabetes model: projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 20, S5–S26 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

10.

Warren, E., Weatherley-Jones, E., Chilcott, J., Beverley, C.: Systematic review and economic evaluation of a long-acting insulin analogue, insulin glargine. Health Technol. Assess. 8(iii), 1–57 (2004)

11.

Zhou, H., Isaman, D.J., Messinger, S., et al.: A computer simulation model of diabetes progression, quality of life, and cost. Diabetes Care 28, 2856–2863 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

12.

Bretzel, R.G., Nuber, U., Landgraf, W., Owens, D.R., Bradley, C., Linn, T.: Once-daily basal insulin glargine versus thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro in people with type 2 diabetes on oral hypoglycaemic agents (APOLLO): an open randomised controlled trial. Lancet 371, 1073–1084 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

13.

HOE 901/2004 Study Investigators Group: Safety and efficacy of insulin glargine (HOE 901) versus NPH insulin in combination with oral treatment in Type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet. Med. 20, 545–551 (2003)CrossRef

14.

Vilsboll, T., Brock, B., Perrild, H., et al.: Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, improves pancreatic B-cell function and arginine-stimulated insulin secretion during hyperglycaemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet. Med. 25, 152–156 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

15.

Balena, R., Ratner, R., Berria, R., et al.: Eight weeks of treatment with the long acting, human GLP-1 analogue R1583 improves glycemic control and lowers body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with metformin: a double-blind placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Presented at the 68th Scientific Session of the American Diabetes Association, San Francisco (2008)

16.

Drucker, D.J., Buse, J.B., Taylor, K., et al.: Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study. Lancet 372, 1240–1250 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Roche Moves Investigational Diabetes Drug, Taspoglutide, into Phase III Clinical Trials: Positive Phase II Results of Roche and Ipsen’s First Once-weekly Human GLP-1 Presented at the American Diabetes Association Congress. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel (2008)

18.

Kim, D., MacConell, L., Zhuang, D., et al.: Effects of once-weekly dosing of a long-acting release formulation of exenatide on glucose control and body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 30, 1487–1493 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

19.

Ratner, R., Nauck, M., Asnaghi, V., et al.: Safety and tolerability of high doses of the long acting, human GLP-1 analogue R1583 in diabetic subjects treated with metformin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Presented at the 68th Scientific Session of the American Diabetes Association, San Francisco (2008)

20.

Greenberg, R.N.: Overview of patient compliance with medication dosing: a literature review. Clin. Ther. 6, 592–599 (1984)PubMed

21.

Morris, A.D.: Addressing dosing frequency in diabetes: a simple approach to improving adherence to therapy and clinical outcomes. Diabetes Educ. 29, 440–446, 448, 450 (2003)

22.

Paes, A.H.P., Bakker, A., Soe-Agnie, C.J.: Impact of dosage frequency on patient compliance. Diabetes Care 20, 1512–1517 (1997)PubMedCrossRef

23.

Shi, L., Hodges, M., Yurgin, N., Boye, K.S.: Impact of dose frequency on compliance and health outcomes: a literature review (1966–2006). Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 7, 187–202 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

24.

Zambanini, A., Newson, R.B., Maisey, M., Feher, M.D.: Injection related anxiety in insulin-treated diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 46, 239–246 (1999)PubMedCrossRef

25.

Anderson Jr., J.H., Brunelle, R.L., Keohane, P., et al.: Mealtime treatment with insulin analog improves postprandial hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Arch. Intern. Med. 157, 1249–1255 (1997)PubMedCrossRef

26.

Anderson Jr., J.H., Brunelle, R.L., Koivisto, V.A., et al.: Reduction of postprandial hyperglycemia and frequency of hypoglycemia in IDDM patients on insulin-analog treatment. Diabetes 46, 265–270 (1997)PubMedCrossRef

27.

Ashwell, S.G., Bradley, C., Stephens, J.W., Witthaus, E., Home, P.D.: Treatment satisfaction and quality of life with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro compared with NPH insulin plus unmodified human insulin in individuals with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 31, 1112–1117 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

28.

Linnebjerg, H., Kothare, P.A., Skrivanek, Z., et al.: Exenatide: effect of injection time on postprandial glucose in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet. Med. 23, 240–245 (2006)PubMedCrossRef

29.

Rex, J., Jensen, K.H., Lawton, S.A.: A review of 20 years’ experience with the NovoPen (registered trademark) family of insulin injection devices. Clin. Drug Inves. 26, 367–401 (2006)CrossRef

30.

Dunn, C.J., Plosker, G.L., Keating, G.M., McKeage, K., Scott, L.J.: Insulin glargine: an updated review of its use in the management of diabetes mellitus. Drugs 63, 1743–1778 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

31.

Bradley, C., Gilbride, C.J.: Improving treatment satisfaction and other patient-reported outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: the role of once-daily insulin glargine. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 10(Suppl 2), 50–65 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

32.

Howorka, K., Pumprla, J., Wagner-Nosiska, D., Grillmayr, H., Schlusche, C., Schabmann, A.: Empowering diabetes out-patients with structured education: short-term and long-term effects of functional insulin treatment on perceived control over diabetes. J. Psychosom. Res. 48, 37–44 (2000)PubMedCrossRef

33.

Shen, W., Kotsanos, J.G., Huster, W.J., Mathias, S.D., Andrejasich, C.M., Patrick, D.L.: Development and validation of the Diabetes Quality of Life Clinical Trial Questionnaire. Med. Care 37, AS45–AS66 (1999)PubMedCrossRef

34.

Anderson, R.T., Skovlund, S.E., Marrero, D., et al.: Development and validation of the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Clin. Ther. 26, 565–578 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

35.

Jorgensen, L.N., Nielsen, F.S.: Timing of pre-meal insulins in diabetic patients on a multiple daily injection regimen: a questionnaire study. Diabetologia 33, A116 (1990)

36.

Nauck, M.A., Hompesch, M., Filipczak, R., Le, T.D.T., Zdravkovic, M., Gumprecht, J.: Five weeks of treatment with the GLP-1 analogue liraglutide improves glycaemic control and lowers body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes 114, 417–423 (2006)PubMedCrossRef

37.

Schwartz, S., Hassman, D., Shelmet, J., et al.: A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover trial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference achieved with a 31 gauge × 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge × 12.7 mm needle in obese patients with diabetes mellitus. Clin. Ther. 26, 1663–1678 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

38.

Gonzalez, J.L., Verrips, G.H., Fekkes, M., Hirasing, R.A., Groth, M.: Psychological responses to the needle-free injection of insulin with the disposable front-end Medi-Jector (MJ-6). Today’s Ther. Trends 16, 53–72 (1998)

39.

Richardson, T., Kerr, D.: Skin-related complications of insulin therapy: epidemiology and emerging management strategies. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 4, 661–667 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

40.

Chokrungvaranon, N., Chentanez, T., Arakaki, R.F.: Clinical experience with exenatide in predominantly Asian and Pacific Islander patients with type 2 diabetes. Endocrine 32, 311–316 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

41.

Gafni, A.: The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv. Res. 29, 207–224 (1994)PubMed

42.

Torrance, G.W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D.: Health utility estimation. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Res. 2, 99–108 (2002)CrossRef

43.

Matza, L.S., Secnik, K., Rentz, A.M., et al.: Assessment of health state utilities for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children using parent proxy report. Qual. Life Res. 14, 735–747 (2005)PubMed

44.

Revicki, D.A., Wood, M.: Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. J. Affect. Disord. 48, 25–36 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

45.

Secnik, K., Matza, L.S., Cottrell, S., Edgell, E., Tilden, D., Mannix, S.: Health state utilities for childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder based on parent preferences in the United Kingdom. Med. Decis. Making 25, 56–70 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

46.

Torrance, G.W., Feeny, D.: Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 5, 559–575 (1989)PubMedCrossRef

47.

Bass, E.B., Steinberg, E.P., Pitt, H.A., et al.: Comparison of the rating scale and the standard gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of gallstone disease. Med. Decis. Making 14, 307–314 (1994)PubMedCrossRef

48.

Cook, J., Richardson, J., Street, A.: A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ. 3, 157–168 (1994)PubMedCrossRef

49.

Feeny, D.H., Torrance, G.W.: Incorporating utility-based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials. Two examples. Med. Care 27, S190–S204 (1989)PubMedCrossRef

50.

Johnston, K., Brown, J., Gerard, K., O’Hanlon, M., Morton, A.: Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc. Sci. Med. 47, 213–222 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

51.

Mauskopf, J.: Utility assessment. In: Chumney, E.C.G., Simpson, K.N. (eds.) Methods and Designs for Outcomes Research. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Bethesda (2006)

52.

Stalmeier, P.F.: Discrepancies between chained and classic utilities induced by anchoring with occasional adjustments. Med. Decis. Making 22, 53–64 (2002)PubMed

53.

Rutten-van Molken, M.P., Bakker, C.H., van Doorslaer, E.K., van der Linden, S.: Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med. Care 33, 922–937 (1995)PubMedCrossRef

54.

Brooks, R., Rabin, R., de Charro, F. (eds.): The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)

55.

McDowell, I., Newell, C.: Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)

56.

Kolotkin, R.L., Crosby, R.D., Kosloski, K.D., Williams, G.R.: Development of a brief measure to assess quality of life in obesity. Obes. Res. 9, 102–111 (2001)PubMedCrossRef

57.

Albu, J., Raja-Khan, N.: The management of the obese diabetic patient. Prim. Care 30, 465–491 (2003)PubMed

58.

Heller, S.: Weight gain during insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 65, S23–S27 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

59.

Scheen, A.J.: Treatment of diabetes in patients with severe obesity. Biomed. Pharmacother. 54, 74–79 (2000)PubMedCrossRef

60.

Diabetes Control Complications Trial (DCCT) Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N. Engl. J. Med. 329, 977–986 (1993)CrossRef

61.

UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group: A 6-year, randomized, controlled trial comparing sulfonylurea, insulin, and metformin therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes that could not be controlled with diet therapy (UKPDS 24). Ann. Intern. Med. 128, 165–175 (1998)

62.

Dupuy, H.J.: In: Wenger, N.K., Mattson, M.E., Furberg, C.D., et al. (eds.) Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies, pp. 170–183. Le Jacq, Washington (1984)

63.

Rush, A.J., Trivedi, M.H., Ibrahim, H.M., et al.: The 16-item quick inventory of depressive symptomatology (QIDS), clinician rating (QIDS-C), and self-report (QIDS-SR): a psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major depression. Biol. Psychiatry 54, 573–583 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

64.

IDS/QIDS: Instruments in English and multiple translations. http://www.ids-qids.org/index.html. Accessed Mar 17 2009 (2009)

65.

Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1988)

66.

Garrow, J.S., Webster, J.: Quetelet’s index (W/H2) as a measure of fatness. Int J Obes 9, 147–153 (1985)PubMed

67.

Koopmanschap, M.: Coping with type II diabetes: the patient’s perspective. Diabetologia 45, S18–S22 (2002)PubMed

68.

Kolotkin, R.L., Crosby, R.D., Williams, G.R.: Assessing weight-related quality of life in obese persons with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 61, 125–132 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

69.

Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M.: Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities, and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 80, 189–194 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

70.

Green, C., Kiebert, G., Murphy, C., et al.: Patients’ health-related quality-of-life and health state values for motor neurone disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Qual. Life Res. 12, 565–574 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

71.

Juniper, E.F., Norman, G.R., Cox, F.M., Roberts, J.N.: Comparison of the standard gamble, rating scale, AQLQ and SF-36 for measuring quality of life in asthma. Eur. Respir. J. 18, 38–44 (2001)PubMedCrossRef

72.

Kartman, B., Gatz, G., Johannesson, M.: Health state utilities in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with heartburn: a study in Germany and Sweden. Med. Decis. Making 24, 40–52 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

73.

Ohsawa, I., Ishida, T., Oshida, Y., Yamanouchi, K., Sato, Y.: Subjective health values of individuals with diabetes in Japan: comparison of utility values with the SF-36 scores. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 62, 9–16 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

74.

Stavem, K.: Quality of life in epilepsy: comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Res. 29, 201–209 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

75.

Sullivan, S.D., Lew, D.P., Devine, E.B., Hakim, Z., Reiber, G.E., Veenstra, D.L.: Health state preference assessment in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pharmacoeconomics 20, 1079–1089 (2002)PubMedCrossRef

76.

Torrance, G.W.: Preferences for health outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Am. J. Manag. Care 3, S8–S20 (1997)PubMed

77.

Drummond, M.F., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)

78.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, London (2003)

79.

Stein, K., Fry, A., Round, A., Milne, R., Brazier, J.: What value health? A review of health state values used in early technology assessments for NICE. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 4, 219–228 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

Title: Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes
Authors: Kristina S. Boye
Louis S. Matza
Kimberly N. Walter
Kate Van Brunt
Andrew C. Palsgrove
Aodan Tynan
Publication date: 01-06-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0224-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Modelling the costs of care of hypertension in patients with metabolic syndrome and its consequences, in Germany, Spain and Italy

Practical issues in handling data input and uncertainty in a budget impact analysis

Health care costs and their predictors of inflammatory bowel diseases in Germany

To model or not to model: lessons from two vaccinations

Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD

Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma