A discrete choice experiment evaluation of patients’ preferences for different risk, benefit, and delivery attributes of insulin therapy for diabetes management

Objective To evaluate patients’ preferences for various attributes of insulin treatment, including route of insulin delivery. Methods We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify patients’ preferences. The attributes (and levels) included in the DCE questionnaire were: glucose control, frequency of hypoglycemic events, weight gain, route of administration for the long-acting and the short-acting insulin, and out-of-pocket cost. Data were analyzed using conditional logit regression and segmented models were also developed to evaluate differences in preferences between subgroups. Results Two hundred and seventy-four questionnaires were completed. The mean age (SD) of participants was 56.7 (12.9) years. Forty-nine percent of participants were insulin users, and 17% had type 1 diabetes. Overall, patients’ ideal insulin treatment would provide better glucose control, result in fewer adverse reactions, have the lowest cost, and be administered orally. Overall, there was a strong positive preference for better glucose control relative to the other attributes. Segmented analyses by insulin use and type of diabetes suggest that there may be an important psychosocial barrier to initiating insulin therapy but that patients tend to adjust to subcutaneous administration once they initiate therapy. Conclusions This study illustrates the importance that patients with diabetes place on glucose control and how preferences for insulin therapy differ between subgroups. Specifically, efforts need to be made to overcome the psychosocial barriers to initiating insulin therapy which may lead to improved control through improved treatment acceptance and ultimately improve patients’ quality of life and reduce the economic burden of the disease.

[1]  R. Holman,et al.  Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. , 1998 .

[2]  M. Holiday-Goodman,et al.  Identifying factors that affect patients' willingness to pay for inhaled insulin. , 2009, Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP.

[3]  Nikos Maniadakis,et al.  Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. , 2004, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  W. Cefalu,et al.  Inhaled Human Insulin Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  W. Cefalu Optimizing Glycemic Control:The Search for Feasible Noninvasive Insulin Delivery Systems , 2003 .

[6]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[7]  R. Sheldon,et al.  Preferences of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus for Inhaled versus Injectable Insulin Regimens , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[8]  P. Zweifel,et al.  Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. , 2002, Health economics.

[9]  2 nd International DAWN Summit : a call-to-action to improve psychosocial care for people with diabetes , 2004 .

[10]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[11]  E. Vermeire,et al.  Patient adherence to treatment: three decades of research. A comprehensive review , 2001, Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics.

[12]  L. Lynd,et al.  A valuation of patients' willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[13]  L. Lynd,et al.  Reconcilable differences: a cross-sectional study of the relationship between socioeconomic status and the magnitude of short-acting beta-agonist use in asthma. , 2004, Chest.

[14]  M. Funnell,et al.  MSJAMA: the problem with compliance in diabetes. , 2000, JAMA.

[15]  S. Clement,et al.  Oral insulin product hexyl-insulin monoconjugate 2 (HIM2) in type 1 diabetes mellitus: the glucose stabilization effects of HIM2. , 2002, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[16]  R. Rubin,et al.  Resistance to insulin therapy among patients and providers: results of the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) study. , 2005, Diabetes care.

[17]  S. Francis,et al.  Can patients' preferences for involvement in decision-making regarding the use of medicines be predicted? , 2007, Patient education and counseling.

[18]  L. Lynd,et al.  The impact of low family income on self-reported health outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis within a publicly funded health-care environment. , 2004, Rheumatology.

[19]  P. Wilkie,et al.  Taking medicines: concordance is not compliance , 1999, BMJ.

[20]  Robert M. Anderson,et al.  The Problem With Compliance in Diabetes , 2000 .

[21]  F. Johnson,et al.  Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. , 2005, Diabetes care.

[22]  C. McHorney,et al.  Understanding Diabetes Medications From the Perspective of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes , 2006, The Diabetes educator.