Retrospective Real-World Adherence in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Once-Daily Liraglutide 1.8 mg or Twice-Daily Exenatide 10 μg
Abstract
Background The effectiveness of a drug is significantly influenced by a patient's adherence to the required regimen. Objective The goal of this retrospective database analysis was to determine the factors affecting adherence over a 12-month follow-up period in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) initiating once-daily liraglutide (1.8 mg) or twice-daily exenatide (10 μg). Methods A patient-centric claims database was used, covering the period January 2009 to December 2011. Patients were included if they had ≥1 claim of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg or twice-daily exenatide 10 μg from January to December 2010 (index date [ID]), ≥2 diagnoses of type 2 DM before ID, continuous enrollment for 12 months before and after ID, and age ≥18 years at ID. Patients were required to be glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment-naive in the 12 months preceding ID and have a second prescription for once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg or twice-daily exenatide 10 μg during the 12 months after ID. The medication possession ratio (MPR) was used as a continuous variable and to categorize patients as high-adherent (MPR ≥80%) or low-adherent (MPR Results A total of 3623 patients (once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg, n = 2036; twice-daily exenatide 10 μg, n = 1587) were identified. Variables found to reduce adherence were younger age, female sex, Southern geographic region, twice-daily exenatide treatment, and higher percentage of copayment from the claimant. After adjusting for confounding factor…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The results for discontinuation by dosing schedule (weekly vs daily) diverge from other real-world studies.
“The results for discontinuation by dosing schedule (weekly vs daily) diverge from other real-world studies for reasons that are unclear.”
From Real-world weight change, adherence, and discontinuation among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in the UK (2022) · cites this paper as [27]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Malmenäs, M., Bouchard, J. R., & Langer, J.
- Corresponding author
- Malmenäs, Maria
- Venue
- Clinical Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 795-807
- ISSN
- 0149-2918 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055194261
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 6.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Novo Nordisk
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- medication adherence, type 2 diabetes, liraglutide, exenatide, GLP-1 receptor agonists, medication possession ratio, predictors of non-adherence, copayments, age and sex differences, regional variation, real-world evidence, prescription refills
- MeSH terms
- Liraglutide, Exenatide, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Peptides, Retrospective Studies, Venoms, Glucagon-Like Peptide 1, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
