Treatment persistence and adherence in people with type 2 diabetes switching to iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin (BI) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have greater simplicity of administration with expected improved adherence/persistence with therapy, but real-world data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare medication persistence, adherence, and health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs for iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL and the GLP-1 RA lixisenatide) with newly initiated free-dose combinations of BI and a GLP-1 RA initiated simultaneously or sequentially. METHODS: This analysis used the US Optum Clinformatics (January 2017 to November 2019) database and included data from adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) of 8% or more. Participants received iGlarLixi or free-dose combinations of BI and GLP-1 RAs prescribed simultaneously or subsequently. Participants were followed for 12 months. Cohorts were propensity score matched on baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was persistence (days on treatment without discontinuation). Secondary outcomes were adherence (proportion of days covered), change in A1c, and all-cause and diabetes-related HRU and costs. Subgroup analyses were performed for individuals with an A1c of 9% or more. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were 1,357 patients in each group; groups were well balanced. In the free-dose combination group, 65.6% started on BI, then added GLP-1 RAs; 28.5% started on GLP-1 RAs, then added BI; and 5.9% started on GLP-1 RAs and BI on the same day. In the subgroup with a baseline A1c level of 9% or more, 952 (iGlarLixi) and 932 (free-dose combination) participants were included. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the overall population who received iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations were persistent (44.8% vs 36.3% [hazard ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.11-1.35, P < 0.001]; the median [Q1, Q3] number of persistent days was 150 [63, 360] vs 120 [60, 310]) and adherent to therapy (41.3% vs 18.7% [odds ratio = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.57-3.65; P < 0.001]). Results for persistence in the subpopulation of participants with HbA1c levels of 9% or more were similar. Reductions in A1c from baseline were similar between iGlarLixi and the free-dose combination group (overall population: −1.2% vs −1.3%; P = 0.1913), but the number of participants in the database with follow-up A1c data was low. All-cause and diabetes-related pharmacy visits and total medication and diabetes medication pharmacy claims costs were significantly lower (all P < 0.001) for those receiving iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 2 diabetes, iGlarLixi was associated with longer persistence by approximately 30 days, improved adherence, and reductions in outpatient and pharmacy visits and in pharmacy costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi US. Medical writing support was provided by Barrie Anthony, PhD, CMPP, of Evidence Scientific Solutions and funded by Sanofi US. Dr Edelman has been on an advisory board and speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, MannKind, and Xeris and on an advisory board for BrightSight and is a board member for Senseonics and Team-Type1. Ms Cassarino is on the speakers’ bureau for Sanofi. Dr Kayne has been a consultant and speakers’ bureau member for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dexcom, Eli Lilly & Company, Janssen, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr Dex and Mr Li are employees of Sanofi. Dr Pasquel has received unrestricted research support from Dexcom, Insulet, and Merck and has been a consultant for Medscape, AI Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Dexcom.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".