References
- Russell-Jones D, Vaag A, Schmitz O, et al. Liraglutide vs insulin glargine and placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (LEAD-5 met+SU): a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2009;52:2046-55
- Buse JB, Rosenstock J, Sesti G, et al. Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6). Lancet 2009;374:39-47
- Marre M, Shaw J, Brändle M, et al. Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, added to a sulphonylurea over 26 weeks produces greater improvements in glycaemic and weight control compared with adding rosiglitazone or placebo in subjects with Type 2 diabetes (LEAD-1 SU). Diabet Med 2009;26:268-78
- Zinman B, Gerich J, Buse JB, et al. Efficacy and safety of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide in combination with metformin and thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes (LEAD-4 Met+TZD). Diabetes Care 2009;32:1224-30
- Nauck M, Frid A, Hermansen K, et al. Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study. Diabetes Care 2009;32:84-90
- Garber A, Henry R, Ratner R, et al. Liraglutide versus glimepiride monotherapy for type 2 diabetes (LEAD-3 Mono): a randomised, 52-week, phase III, double-blind, parallel-treatment trial. Lancet 2009;373:473-81
- Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, et al. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2004;7:442-54
- Eliasson B, Eeg-Olofsson K, Cederholm J, et al Antihyperglycaemic treatment of type 2 diabetes: results from a national diabetes register. Diabetes Metab 2007;33:269-76
- Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-3
- Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:55-64
- Kuhfeld WF. Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice Conjoint and Graphical Techniques. SAS Institute 2005
- Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997;6:261-73
- Barker N. A Practical Introduction to the Bootstrap Using the SAS System. Wallingford, UK: Oxford Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2005
- Hoelzel W, Weykamp C, Jeppsson JO, et al. IFCC reference system for measurement of hemoglobin A1c in human blood and the national standardization schemes in the United States, Japan, and Sweden: a method-comparison study. Clin Chem 2004;50:166-74
- Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;4:263-91
- Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 1992;5:297-323
- Liu JT, Tsou MW, Hammitt JK. Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment. Health Policy 2009;91:211-18
- Rubin RR, Peyrot M, Siminerio LM. Health care and patient-reported outcomes: results of the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) study. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1249-55
- 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. Lancet 1998;352:837-53
- 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). UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1125-36
- Funnell MM. The Diabetes, Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) study. Clin Diabetes 2006;24:154-5
- Skovlund SE, Peyrot M. The Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) program: a new approach to improving outcomes of diabetes care. Diabetes Spectrum 2005;18:136-42
- Lazaro A, Barberan R, Rubio E. Private and social time preferences for health and money: an empirical estimation. Health Econ 2001;10:351-6
- Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP. Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: a review. Leisure Science 1990;12:9-32
- Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2009;18:389-401