Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 3/2008

01-03-2008 | Original Research Article

Preferences of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus for Inhaled versus Injectable Insulin Regimens

Authors: Jeremy Chancellor, Samuel Aballéa, Alison Lawrence, Rob Sheldon, Sandrine Cure, Juliette Plun-Favreau, Nick Marchant

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 3/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In clinical trials, patients have expressed greater satisfaction with inhaled human insulin (EXUBERA®, Pfizer) than with injectable insulin. No studies to date have attempted to quantify the strength of preferences for these alternative routes of administration.

Objective

To elicit health state preference values from people with diabetes mellitus for treatment with inhaled human insulin compared with injectable insulin.

Study design

A patient preference study.

Methods

Written descriptions were developed for five clinical scenarios: two for type 1 diabetes and three for type 2 diabetes. Each scenario required adjustment or initiation of insulin treatment because of poor glycaemic control. Two alternative insulin regimens were described for each scenario: injectable-only or inhaled human insulin to replace or reduce the number of daily injections. Equal efficacy was assumed within each of these scenario pairs.
A total of 344 UK adults (66% male), 132 (mean age 49 years) with type 1 diabetes and 212 (mean age 63 years) with type 2 diabetes, rated scenario pairs corresponding to their own type of diabetes and rated their own health by time trade-off (TTO), by correspondence with EQ-5D health descriptions and on the EQ-5D visual analogue scale. Respondents stated their preference for, or indifference between, the injection-only or inhalation variant comprising each scenario pair. TTO utilities and EQ-5D utilities by UK community tariff were compared within each scenario pair, for the total sample rating, each scenario pair, and by subgroups of stated preference for each variant.

Results

A majority, ranging from 63% to 81% across the scenarios, preferred inhalation. Mean differences in TTO scores were 0.074, 0.076, 0.088, 0.053 and 0.043 for the five scenarios, respectively (p < 0.005 for all). Mean EQ-5D differences were 0.043, 0.029, 0.037, 0.020 and 0.021 for the five scenarios, respectively (p < 0.05 for scenarios 1 and 3), driven mainly by differences on the pain/discomfort dimension of the EQ-5D. Differences in favour of inhalation among those preferring inhalation, were greater than differences in favour of injections among those preferring injections. Mean self-rated health was similar between respondents with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, at 0.83 (TTO) and 0.75 (EQ-5D). The TTO was more sensitive than EQ-5D. Self-rated health by EQ-5D compared closely with reported values from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS).

Conclusions

This study highlights the utility differences that people with diabetes perceive between the prospect of inhaled and injected routes of insulin administration, even under the assumption of no difference in efficacy. These differences are magnified when the comparison in utility scores is between the majority who prefer the inhaled route and the minority who prefer the injectable route.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
2
On 18 October 2007, after this manuscript was accepted for publication, Pfizer announced that it would no longer be making EXUBERA® available beyond 16 January 2008.
 
3
We use this term for convenience. More correctly, ‘utility’ values should be termed ‘health state preference’ values unless they conform to strict axioms of expected utility theory, which rarely is so.
 
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Newhouse MT. Tennis anyone? The lungs as a new court for systemic therapy. CMAJ 1999 Nov 16; 161 (10): 1287–8PubMed Newhouse MT. Tennis anyone? The lungs as a new court for systemic therapy. CMAJ 1999 Nov 16; 161 (10): 1287–8PubMed
3.
go back to reference Cefalu WT. Inhaled insulin: a proof-of-concept study. Ann Intern Med 2001 May 1; 134 (9 Pt 1): 795PubMed Cefalu WT. Inhaled insulin: a proof-of-concept study. Ann Intern Med 2001 May 1; 134 (9 Pt 1): 795PubMed
4.
go back to reference Quattrin T, Belanger A, Bohannon NJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin (Exubera) compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes: results of a 6-mo nth, randomized, comparative trial. Diabetes Care 2004 Nov; 27 (11): 2622–7PubMedCrossRef Quattrin T, Belanger A, Bohannon NJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin (Exubera) compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes: results of a 6-mo nth, randomized, comparative trial. Diabetes Care 2004 Nov; 27 (11): 2622–7PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Skyler JS, Cefalu WT, Kourides I A, et al. Efficacy of inhaled human insulin in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a randomised proof-of-concept study. Lancet 2001 Feb 3; 357 (9253): 331–5PubMedCrossRef Skyler JS, Cefalu WT, Kourides I A, et al. Efficacy of inhaled human insulin in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a randomised proof-of-concept study. Lancet 2001 Feb 3; 357 (9253): 331–5PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Skyler JS, Weinstock RS, Raskin P, et al. Use of inhaled insulin in a basal/bolus insulin regimen in type 1 diabetic subjects: a 6-month, randomized, comparative trial. Diabetes Care 2005 Jul; 28 (7): 1630–5PubMedCrossRef Skyler JS, Weinstock RS, Raskin P, et al. Use of inhaled insulin in a basal/bolus insulin regimen in type 1 diabetic subjects: a 6-month, randomized, comparative trial. Diabetes Care 2005 Jul; 28 (7): 1630–5PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cefalu WT, Skyler JS, Kourides I A, et al. Inhaled human insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2001 Feb 6; 134 (3): 203–7PubMed Cefalu WT, Skyler JS, Kourides I A, et al. Inhaled human insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2001 Feb 6; 134 (3): 203–7PubMed
8.
go back to reference Royle P, Waugh N, McAuley L, et al. Inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (3): CD003890PubMed Royle P, Waugh N, McAuley L, et al. Inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (3): CD003890PubMed
9.
go back to reference Cappelleri JC, Cefalu WT, Rosenstock J, et al. Treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes: a comparison between an inhaled insulin regimen and a subcutaneous insulin regimen. Clin Ther 2002 Apr; 24 (4): 552–64PubMedCrossRef Cappelleri JC, Cefalu WT, Rosenstock J, et al. Treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes: a comparison between an inhaled insulin regimen and a subcutaneous insulin regimen. Clin Ther 2002 Apr; 24 (4): 552–64PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gerber RA, Cappelleri JC, Kourides I A, et al. Treatment satisfaction with inhaled insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2001 Sep; 24 (9): 1556–9PubMedCrossRef Gerber RA, Cappelleri JC, Kourides I A, et al. Treatment satisfaction with inhaled insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2001 Sep; 24 (9): 1556–9PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rosenstock J, Cappelleri JC, Bolinder B, et al. Patient satisfaction and glycemic control after 1 year with inhaled insulin (Exubera) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004 Jun; 27 (6): 1318–23PubMedCrossRef Rosenstock J, Cappelleri JC, Bolinder B, et al. Patient satisfaction and glycemic control after 1 year with inhaled insulin (Exubera) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004 Jun; 27 (6): 1318–23PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference FreemantleN, Blonde L, Duhot D, et al. Availability of inhaled insulin promotes greater perceived acceptance of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005 Feb; 28 (2): 427–8CrossRef FreemantleN, Blonde L, Duhot D, et al. Availability of inhaled insulin promotes greater perceived acceptance of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005 Feb; 28 (2): 427–8CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Coffey JT, Brandle M, Zhou H, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002 Dec; 25 (12): 2238–43PubMedCrossRef Coffey JT, Brandle M, Zhou H, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002 Dec; 25 (12): 2238–43PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (4): 340–9PubMed Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (4): 340–9PubMed
16.
go back to reference Maddigan SL, Feeny DH, Johnson JA. Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian national population health survey. Qual Life Res 2005 Jun; 14 (5): 1311–20PubMedCrossRef Maddigan SL, Feeny DH, Johnson JA. Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian national population health survey. Qual Life Res 2005 Jun; 14 (5): 1311–20PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Maddigan SL, Feeny DH, Johnson JA. A comparison of the health utilities indices mark 2 and mark 3 in type 2 diabetes. Med Decis Making 2003 Nov; 23 (6): 489–501PubMedCrossRef Maddigan SL, Feeny DH, Johnson JA. A comparison of the health utilities indices mark 2 and mark 3 in type 2 diabetes. Med Decis Making 2003 Nov; 23 (6): 489–501PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life associated with diabetes mellitus in an adult population. J Diabetes Complications 2000 Jan; 14 (1): 18–24PubMedCrossRef Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life associated with diabetes mellitus in an adult population. J Diabetes Complications 2000 Jan; 14 (1): 18–24PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference The MVH Group. The measurement and valuation of health: first report on the main survey. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1994 The MVH Group. The measurement and valuation of health: first report on the main survey. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1994
20.
go back to reference MVH Group. The measurement and valuation of health: final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1995 MVH Group. The measurement and valuation of health: final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1995
21.
go back to reference Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986 Mar; 5 (1): 1–30PubMedCrossRef Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986 Mar; 5 (1): 1–30PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ 2005 Jan; 14 (1): 39–53PubMedCrossRef Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ 2005 Jan; 14 (1): 39–53PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996 Mar; 5 (2): 141–54PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996 Mar; 5 (2): 141–54PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference UK prospective Diabetes Study Group. Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). Diabetes Care 1999 Jul; 22 (7): 1125–36CrossRef UK prospective Diabetes Study Group. Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). Diabetes Care 1999 Jul; 22 (7): 1125–36CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998 Mar 7; 316 (7133): 736–41PubMedCrossRef Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998 Mar 7; 316 (7133): 736–41PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ 2005 Mar; 14 (3): 217–30PubMedCrossRef Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ 2005 Mar; 14 (3): 217–30PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJ, Kiebert GM, et al. The ‘utility’ of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment: is it an alternative to the time tradeoff? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (2): 291–8PubMedCrossRef Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJ, Kiebert GM, et al. The ‘utility’ of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment: is it an alternative to the time tradeoff? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (2): 291–8PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, et al. Who should value health? In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007: 112–7 Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, et al. Who should value health? In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007: 112–7
32.
go back to reference Rutten-van Molken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, et al. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement: experience from two clinical trials. Med Care 1995 Sep; 33 (9): 922–37PubMedCrossRef Rutten-van Molken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, et al. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement: experience from two clinical trials. Med Care 1995 Sep; 33 (9): 922–37PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al. Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making 1998 Oct; 18 (4): 391–9PubMedCrossRef Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al. Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making 1998 Oct; 18 (4): 391–9PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Hayman J A, Fairclough DL, Harris JR, et al. Patient preferences concerning the trade-off between the risks and benefits of routine radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997 Mar; 15 (3): 1252–60PubMed Hayman J A, Fairclough DL, Harris JR, et al. Patient preferences concerning the trade-off between the risks and benefits of routine radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997 Mar; 15 (3): 1252–60PubMed
35.
go back to reference Morrisson GC, Neilson A, Malek M. Improving the sensitivity of the time trade-off method: results of an experiment using chained TTO questions. Discussion paper 98/22. Nottingham: University of Nottingham School of Economics, 1998 Morrisson GC, Neilson A, Malek M. Improving the sensitivity of the time trade-off method: results of an experiment using chained TTO questions. Discussion paper 98/22. Nottingham: University of Nottingham School of Economics, 1998
36.
go back to reference Stalmeier PF. Discrepancies between chained and classic utilities induced by anchoring with occasional adjustments. Med Decis Making 2002 Jan; 22 (1): 53–64PubMed Stalmeier PF. Discrepancies between chained and classic utilities induced by anchoring with occasional adjustments. Med Decis Making 2002 Jan; 22 (1): 53–64PubMed
37.
go back to reference McNamee P, Glendinning S, Shenfine J, et al. Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods: applications in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Health Econ 2004 Feb; 5 (1): 81–6PubMedCrossRef McNamee P, Glendinning S, Shenfine J, et al. Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods: applications in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Health Econ 2004 Feb; 5 (1): 81–6PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Methods for obtaining health state values: generic preference-based measuers of health and the alternatives. In: Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 Methods for obtaining health state values: generic preference-based measuers of health and the alternatives. In: Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
39.
go back to reference Freemantle N. NICE says no to inhaled insulin: what lessons should we learn? Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (7): 627–9PubMedCrossRef Freemantle N. NICE says no to inhaled insulin: what lessons should we learn? Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (7): 627–9PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Preferences of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus for Inhaled versus Injectable Insulin Regimens
Authors
Jeremy Chancellor
Samuel Aballéa
Alison Lawrence
Rob Sheldon
Sandrine Cure
Juliette Plun-Favreau
Nick Marchant
Publication date
01-03-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 3/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826030-00005

Other articles of this Issue 3/2008

PharmacoEconomics 3/2008 Go to the issue

Adis Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation

Zoledronic Acid

Practical Application

Projecting Vaccine Efficacy