Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

  6. 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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ray Hsieh for statistical programming; Julie Meilak for production assistance; Anne Brooks and Thomas Albert for assistance with participant recruitment and data collection; Terri Kim, Robert Brodows, and Dennis Revicki for expert consultation. Permission to use all patient-reported outcome measures was granted by the instrument developers. Funding for the study was provided by Eli Lilly and Company. Publication of this study was not dependent on the results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Kristina S. Boye & Aodan Tynan

  2. Center for Health Outcomes Research, United BioSource Corporation, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 600, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA

    Louis S. Matza, Kimberly N. Walter, Kate Van Brunt & Andrew C. Palsgrove

Authors
  1. Kristina S. Boye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louis S. Matza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kimberly N. Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kate Van Brunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew C. Palsgrove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aodan Tynan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louis S. Matza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boye, K.S., Matza, L.S., Walter, K.N. et al. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ 12, 219–230 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0224-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0224-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation