Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor After Switching From Once-Daily DPP-4 Inhibitor to Once-Weekly Regimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We administered once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (W) (used omarigliptin as W in this study) to patients with type 2 diabetes taking once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor (D), and investigated efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction before and after switching to W. METHODS: W was administered to 182 patients with type 2 diabetes taking D (used sitagliptin as D in this study), who had been visiting our hospital on an outpatient basis; 164 (90.6%) of these patients requested to switch medications. Of these 164 patients, this study investigated 153 who requested to continue taking W. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, body weight, blood pressure and a questionnaire survey (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ)) were evaluated in these patients. RESULTS: . After switching to W, HbA1c levels changed from 7.41 ± 0.7% to 7.36 ± 0.9%, which was not statistically significant. Changes in body weight, BMI, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were also not significant. On the DTSQ, satisfaction of Q1 significantly increased (P < 0.01). The score for lifestyle assessment did not significantly change, but compliance significantly improved (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study revealed that 90% of patients taking D elected to switch to W. Moreover, patient satisfaction and compliance improved after switching to W. Increased satisfaction appeared to be influenced by improved blood glucose control, but was not associated with compliance. Switching from D to W did not affect HbA1c levels but improved patient adherence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".