Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES To assess preference and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the insulin mixture Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70, from the patients' perspective, the relative importance of individual treatment attributes was also determined. Differences among five European countries were investigated. METHODS Two hundred and ninety patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from five European countries. Of these, 235 were suitable for inclusion in the analysis. Their mean age was 51.3 years and, on average, patients had had diabetes for 11 years. A discrete-choice conjoint analysis was conducted using face-to-face interviews. Treatment attributes, such as timing of injections around meals, 2-hour postprandial control, effect of prandial dosing, frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia, and cost, and levels were derived after a systematic review of all published comparative clinical trial data. Meta-analyses were undertaken where appropriate. RESULTS Ninety percent (95% CI 86-93%) of patients would choose Humalog Mix25 over Humulin 30/70, at the same cost. On average, European subjects were willing to pay 111 euros per month more for Humalog Mix25 (95% CI 86.71-156.91 euros). The primary driver was the reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events, contributing 49% of WTP. The convenience of dosing immediately before the meal contributed 37%. Preference results were similar in all five countries, although WTP and sensitivity to increasing cost both varied. CONCLUSIONS Patients in all countries showed a preference and WTP for Humalog Mix25 over Humulin 30/70. The main drivers of patient WTP may be of interest to pharmaceutical prescribers, manufacturers, and reimbursement agencies.

[1]  E. McIntosh,et al.  Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia , 2000 .

[2]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  PATIENTS' PREFERENCES REGARDING THE PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF LIFE-SAVING TECHNOLOGY , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[3]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. , 1997, Health economics.

[4]  J. Herson Fieller's theorem vs. The delta method for significance intervals for ratios , 1975 .

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

[6]  M. Wedel,et al.  Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations , 1997 .

[7]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[8]  M. Trautmann,et al.  Improved postprandial blood glucose control and reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia during treatment with two novel insulin lispro-protamine formulations, insulin lispro mix25 and insulin lispro mix50. Mix50 Study Group. , 1999, Clinical therapeutics.

[9]  P. J. Huber The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions , 1967 .

[10]  M. Lindstrom,et al.  A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response data , 1996 .

[11]  K. Lancaster,et al.  Consumer Demand. A New Approach. , 1972 .

[12]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis , 1996 .

[13]  L. Heinemann,et al.  Time-Action Profiles of Novel Premixed Preparations of Insulin Lispro and NPL Insulin , 1998, Diabetes Care.

[14]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[15]  H Meister,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Examine the Importance of Hearing Aid Attributes , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[16]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Value Surgical Versus Medical Management of Miscarriage , 1995 .

[17]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Understanding Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Lupus Nephritis With Adaptive Conjoint Analysis , 2001, Medical care.

[18]  P. Shackley,et al.  Vascular patients' preferences for local treatment: an application of conjoint analysis , 2001, Journal of health services research & policy.

[19]  P. Roach,et al.  Improved postprandial glycemic control during treatment with Humalog Mix25, a novel protamine-based insulin lispro formulation. Humalog Mix25 Study Group. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[20]  H. L. Le Roy,et al.  Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability; Vol. IV , 1969 .

[21]  D. Howey,et al.  [Lys(B28), Pro(B29)]-Human Insulin: A Rapidly Absorbed Analogue of Human Insulin , 1994, Diabetes.