Dataset Information

Higher Rates of Persistence and Adherence in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Once-Weekly vs Daily Injectable Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in US Clinical Practice (STAY Study).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Reducing dosing frequency may lower treatment burden and improve persistence and adherence. This retrospective, observational study assessed persistence and adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating once-weekly or daily injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in US clinical practice.

Methods

The study used data from adults (≥ 18 years) with T2D who were included in the IBM MarketScan Explorys Claims-EMR Data Set for ≥ 180 days pre-index and ≥ 365 days post-index, were GLP-1 RA and insulin naïve at first claim (index date) for once-weekly or daily injectable GLP-1 RAs (follow-up: index date + 365 days), and were propensity score (PS) matched 1:1 by baseline characteristics. Persistence, defined as the stay time, was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models. Adherence was defined as a proportion of days covered of 0.8 or greater. To assess whether patients with more advanced disease would benefit from long-acting treatments, patients were matched to the baseline characteristics of basal insulin initiators using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

Results

The PS-matched cohorts (n = 784 each) had similar baseline characteristics. Once-weekly regimens were associated with significantly higher persistence than daily treatments (median stay time: 333 vs 269 days; hazard ratio 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.90]; p < 0.01) and with significantly higher adherence than daily regimens at 6 months and 12 months (p < 0.01 for both). Mean glycated haemoglobin reductions were greater with once-weekly than with daily treatment at 6 months (- 1.1% vs - 0.9%; p < 0.01) and 12 months (- 0.9% vs - 0.7%; p = not significant); adherent patients experienced greater reductions than those with poor adherence. Results were similar in the IPTW-matched analysis.

Conclusion

In US clinical practice, once-weekly injectable treatments are associated with better persistence and adherence than daily regimens over 1 year. Once-weekly regimens may also benefit patients with more advanced T2D.

SUBMITTER: Polonsky WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8776963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTo assess the safety and efficacy of monotherapy with once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide vs sitagliptin in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsIn this phase IIIa randomized, open-label, parallel-group, active-controlled, multicentre trial, Japanese adults with T2D treated with diet and exercise only or oral antidiabetic drug monotherapy (washed out during the run-in period) received once-weekly s.c. semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. The primary endpoint was number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after 30 weeks.ResultsOverall, 308 participants were randomized and exposed to treatment, with similar baseline characteristics across the groups. In total, 2.9% of participants in both the semaglutide 0.5 mg and the sitagliptin group prematurely discontinued treatment, compared with 14.7% in the semaglutide 1.0 mg group. The majority of discontinuations in the semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg groups were attributable to adverse events (AEs). More TEAEs were reported in semaglutide- vs sitagliptin-treated participants (74.8%, 71.6% and 66.0% in the semaglutide 0.5 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin groups, respectively). AEs were mainly mild to moderate. Gastrointestinal AEs, most frequently reported with semaglutide, diminished in frequency over time. The mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c [baseline 8.1%]) decreased by 1.9% and 2.2% with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs 0.7% with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference [ETD] vs sitagliptin -1.13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.32; -0.94, and -1.44%, 95% CI -1.63; -1.24; both P < .0001). Body weight (baseline 69.3 kg) was reduced by 2.2 and 3.9 kg with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively (ETD -2.22 kg, 95% CI -3.02; -1.42 and -3.88 kg, 95% CI -4.70; -3.07; both P < .0001).ConclusionsIn Japanese people with T2D, more TEAEs were reported with semaglutide than with sitagliptin; however, the semaglutide safety profile was similar to that of other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Semaglutide significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight compared with sitagliptin.