Dataset Information

Semaglutide Once-Weekly Persistence and Adherence Versus Other GLP-1 RAs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a US Real-World Setting.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The superior efficacy and safety of semaglutide once-weekly (QW), compared with dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW, have been demonstrated in the SUSTAIN trials. This study assessed treatment persistence and adherence to semaglutide QW versus dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW in a real-world setting.

Methods

This retrospective, database study used Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database to identify glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) treatment-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating semaglutide QW, dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. Persistence (time remaining on treatment) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard models. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients with PDC > 80%.

Results

Of 56,715 patients included, 3279 received semaglutide QW, 27,891 dulaglutide, 17,186 liraglutide, and 8359 exenatide QW. Patients initiating semaglutide QW were younger and with lower percentage of Medicare coverage than patients initiating the comparators. Persistence at 360 days was significantly higher for semaglutide QW (67.0%) versus dulaglutide (56.0%), liraglutide (40.4%), and exenatide QW (35.5%); p < 0.001 for all comparisons. Compared with semaglutide QW, the discontinuation rate was significantly higher for dulaglutide (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13, 1.32; p < 0.001), liraglutide (HR 1.80; 95% CI 1.66, 1.95; p < 0.001), and exenatide QW (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.96, 2.30; p < 0.001). Adherence to semaglutide QW versus liraglutide at 360 days and to exenatide QW was 39.1% versus 30.0% [p = 0.07] and 27.7% [p = 0.02], respectively. Adherence to dulaglutide at 360 days was numerically higher than semaglutide QW (43.2% versus 39.1%; p = 0.45) but did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Persistence with semaglutide QW was significantly greater than comparators, while adherence was comparable or greater. Together with earlier results from double-blind clinical studies, these data support semaglutide QW use for treatment of patients with T2D.

SUBMITTER: Uzoigwe C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8099966 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOnce-weekly (OW) semaglutide was associated with clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control and body weight versus comparators in the SUSTAIN randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SURE UK, which is one of a series of individual studies that comprise the SURE programme, evaluated the use of OW semaglutide in a real-world patient population with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the UK.MethodsIn this prospective, observational study, adults (≥ 18 years) with ≥ 1 documented glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value ≤ 12 weeks before semaglutide initiation were enrolled. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of study (EOS; ~ 30 weeks, although due to the COVID-19 pandemic, visits up to week 52 were permitted). Secondary endpoints included change in body weight, waist circumference and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Physicians were to report all episodes of documented or severe hypoglycaemia, fatal events, serious adverse drug reactions, pregnancies and adverse events (AEs) in foetuses/newborn infants; other AEs during the study period could be reported on a voluntary basis.ResultThe estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline to EOS was - 16.3 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI): - 18.22, - 14.37] (- 1.5%-points [95% CI - 1.67, - 1.31]; p < 0.0001) among the 171 enrolled patients who completed the study on treatment. Mean body weight change was - 5.8 kg (95% CI - 6.75, - 4.94; p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Improvements were also observed in other secondary endpoints, including PROs. No new safety concerns were identified with semaglutide treatment.ConclusionPatients receiving OW semaglutide experienced statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in HbA1c and body weight. These results are in line with those of the SUSTAIN RCTs and support the use of OW semaglutide in routine clinical practice in adults with T2D in the UK.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03876015.

Project description:AIMS:To evaluate adherence, persistence, glycaemic control and costs at 12-month follow-up for patients initiating dulaglutide versus liraglutide or exenatide once weekly. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The present retrospective observational claims study included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for dulaglutide, liraglutide or exenatide once weekly from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%, and persistence was measured by time to discontinuation of index therapy. Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration was assessed in a subset with pre- and post-index HbA1c results. Propensity scores were used to match the cohorts. RESULTS:The baseline characteristics were balanced for the matched cohorts, dulaglutide versus liraglutide (n = 2471) and dulaglutide versus exenatide once weekly (n = 1891). Among those initiating dulaglutide there was a significantly higher proportion of adherent patients compared with the groups initiating liraglutide (51.2% vs. 38.2%; P < 0.001) and exenatide once weekly (50.7% vs. 31.9%; P < 0.001). At 12 months, 55% of patients in the dulaglutide group versus 43.8% in the liraglutide group (P < 0.001), and 54.9% in the dulaglutide versus 34.4% in the exenatide once-weekly group (P < 0.001) were persistent. The dulaglutide group had a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than the liraglutide group (-34.24 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.032), and a greater, but nonsignificant, reduction in HbA1c than the exenatide once-weekly group (-34.46 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.056). The diabetes-related total costs were not significantly different between the dulaglutide and the liraglutide group ($16,174 vs. $16,694; P = 0.184), and were significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly ($15,768 vs. $14,615; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS:Adherence and persistence are important considerations in patient-centric treatment selection for patients with T2D. Higher adherence and persistence for dulaglutide compared with liraglutide or exenatide once weekly are relevant criteria when choosing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment for patients with T2D.

Project description:IntroductionSemaglutide once-weekly (QW) is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue administered at a 0.5 or 1.0 mg dose. In the absence of head-to-head trials between semaglutide QW and other GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in a Japanese population, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. The objective was to assess the relative efficacy and safety of semaglutide QW vs GLP-1 RAs in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), with a specific focus on the comparison between semaglutide 0.5 mg QW and dulaglutide 0.75 mg QW.MethodsA systematic review (SR) and supplementary Japanese searches were conducted to identify trials of GLP-1 RAs in Japanese patients on diet and exercise, who have previously received 0-1 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Data at 52-56 weeks were extracted for the following outcomes (feasible for analysis in an NMA): glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and overall hypoglycemia. The data were synthesized using an NMA and a Bayesian framework.ResultsFour trials, identified from the SR and Japanese-specific searches, were relevant for inclusion in the NMA. When compared to dulaglutide 0.75 mg QW, semaglutide 0.5 mg QW was shown to provide significant reductions in HbA1c [- 0.61% (12.3 mmol/mol)], weight (- 1.45 kg), SBP (- 5.03 mmHg), and FPG (- 1.26 mmol/L). No significant differences in the proportion of patients achieving a HbA1c level < 7% (53 mmol/mol) or the risk of overall hypoglycemia were observed between semaglutide 0.5 mg QW and dulaglutide 0.75 mg QW.ConclusionOverall, semaglutide 0.5 mg QW was associated with significant reductions from baseline in HbA1c, weight, SBP, and FPG compared with dulaglutide 0.75 mg QW in Japanese patients with T2DM. These data may provide valuable evidence for clinical decision-making, cost-effectiveness analyses, and health technology appraisal (HTA) requirements.FundingNovo Nordisk Pharma Ltd.

Project description:Atorvastatin, which has been approved by regulatory agencies for primary- and secondary-prevention patients with dyslipidemia, has historically been the most commonly prescribed statin and is now widely available in generic formulations. Despite widespread statin usage, many patients fail to attain recommended (LDL-C) targets. While several factors impact the successful treatment of dyslipidemia, suboptimal patient adherence is a major limiting factor to medication effectiveness. In this narrative review we sought to investigate patient adherence and persistence with atorvastatin in a real-world setting and to identify barriers to LDL-C goal attainment and therapy outcomes beyond the realm of clinical trials. Moreover, in light of growing generic usage, we carried out targeted literature searches to investigate the impact of generic atorvastatin availability on patient adherence/persistence, and on lipid and efficacy outcomes, compared with branded formulations. Unsurprisingly, real-world data suggest that patient adherence/persistence to atorvastatin is suboptimal, but few studies have attempted to address factors impacting adherence. Data from studies comparing adherence/persistence in patients prescribed branded or generic atorvastatin are limited and show no clear evidence that initiation of a specific preparation of atorvastatin impacts adherence/persistence. Furthermore, results from studies comparing adherence/persistence of patients who switched from the branded to the generic drug are conflicting, although they do suggest that switching may negatively impact adherence over the long term. Additional real-world studies are clearly required to understand potential differences in adherence and persistence between patients initiating treatment with branded versus generic atorvastatin and, moreover, the factors that influence adherence. Targeted education initiatives and additional research are needed to understand and improve patient adherence in a real-world setting.