Abstract：
Greater medication adherence and persistence have been associated with improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study compared adherence, persistence, and treatment patterns among patients naïve to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists initiating once-weekly injectable treatment with dulaglutide versus semaglutide over 6-month (6M) and 12-month (12M) follow-up periods.
This retrospective, observational cohort study used administrative claims data from three IBM MarketScan research databases. Data from adult patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiating treatment with dulaglutide or semaglutide between January 2018 and January 2020 (index date was defined as the earliest fill date), without evidence of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use in the 6M baseline period, and with continuous enrollment in the 6M baseline and 6M or 12M follow-up period were included. Dulaglutide initiators were propensity score-matched, in a 1:1 ratio, to semaglutide initiators in each 6M and 12M follow-up cohort (26,284 and 13,837 pairs, respectively).
In the matched cohorts, baseline characteristics were balanced; the mean age was 53 years, and 50% of patients were women. Compared to semaglutide initiators, dulaglutide initiators were more adherent (6M, 63.4% vs 47.8%; 12M, 54.4% vs 43.3%; both, P < 0.0001), more persistent on therapy (6M, 72% vs 62%, 12M, 55.5% vs 45.3%, both, P < 0.001), and had more mean days of persistence (6M, 145 vs 132, 12M, 254.3 vs 220.7; both, P < 0.001).
At both 6M and 12M follow-up, dulaglutide initiators had significantly greater adherence and greater persistence compared with matched semaglutide initiators.
This retrospective, observational cohort study used administrative claims data from three IBM MarketScan research databases. Data from adult patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiating treatment with dulaglutide or semaglutide between January 2018 and January 2020 (index date was defined as the earliest fill date), without evidence of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use in the 6M baseline period, and with continuous enrollment in the 6M baseline and 6M or 12M follow-up period were included. Dulaglutide initiators were propensity score-matched, in a 1:1 ratio, to semaglutide initiators in each 6M and 12M follow-up cohort (26,284 and 13,837 pairs, respectively).
In the matched cohorts, baseline characteristics were balanced; the mean age was 53 years, and 50% of patients were women. Compared to semaglutide initiators, dulaglutide initiators were more adherent (6M, 63.4% vs 47.8%; 12M, 54.4% vs 43.3%; both, P < 0.0001), more persistent on therapy (6M, 72% vs 62%, 12M, 55.5% vs 45.3%, both, P < 0.001), and had more mean days of persistence (6M, 145 vs 132, 12M, 254.3 vs 220.7; both, P < 0.001).
At both 6M and 12M follow-up, dulaglutide initiators had significantly greater adherence and greater persistence compared with matched semaglutide initiators.
摘要：
更大的药物依从性和持久性与2型糖尿病患者的血糖控制改善相关。这项研究比较了依从性，持久性,在6个月（6M）和12个月（12M）的随访期内，未对胰高血糖素样肽1受体激动剂开始每周一次的杜拉鲁肽与司马鲁肽注射治疗的患者的治疗模式。
这次回顾展,观察性队列研究使用来自三个IBMMarketScan研究数据库的行政索赔数据.数据来自2018年1月至2020年1月期间新开始使用杜拉鲁肽或司马鲁肽治疗的成年2型糖尿病患者（指标日期定义为最早填写日期），在6M基线期没有胰高血糖素样肽1受体激动剂使用的证据，纳入6M基线和6M或12M随访期的连续入组.杜拉鲁肽的发起者倾向得分匹配，以1:1的比例，每个6M和12M随访队列中的司马鲁肽发起者(26,284和13,837对，分别)。
在匹配的队列中，基线特征平衡；平均年龄为53岁，50%的患者是女性。与司马鲁肽引发剂相比，杜拉鲁肽引发剂更粘附(6M，63.4%对47.8%；12M，54.4%vs43.3%；两者，P<0.0001),更持久的治疗(6M，72%vs62%，12M,55.5%vs45.3%，两者,P<0.001)，并且平均持续天数更多(6M，145vs132,12M,254.3vs220.7；两者，P<0.001)。
在6M和12M随访时，与匹配的赛马鲁肽引发剂相比，杜拉鲁肽引发剂具有更大的粘附性和更高的持久性。
这次回顾展,观察性队列研究使用来自三个IBMMarketScan研究数据库的行政索赔数据.数据来自2018年1月至2020年1月期间新开始使用杜拉鲁肽或司马鲁肽治疗的成年2型糖尿病患者（指标日期定义为最早填写日期），在6M基线期没有胰高血糖素样肽1受体激动剂使用的证据，纳入6M基线和6M或12M随访期的连续入组.杜拉鲁肽的发起者倾向得分匹配，以1:1的比例，每个6M和12M随访队列中的司马鲁肽发起者(26,284和13,837对，分别)。
在匹配的队列中，基线特征平衡；平均年龄为53岁，50%的患者是女性。与司马鲁肽引发剂相比，杜拉鲁肽引发剂更粘附(6M，63.4%对47.8%；12M，54.4%vs43.3%；两者，P<0.0001),更持久的治疗(6M，72%vs62%，12M,55.5%vs45.3%，两者,P<0.001)，并且平均持续天数更多(6M，145vs132,12M,254.3vs220.7；两者，P<0.001)。
在6M和12M随访时，与匹配的赛马鲁肽引发剂相比，杜拉鲁肽引发剂具有更大的粘附性和更高的持久性。
