Table 3.
Odds ratio of having a PDC of at least 0.80 in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care practices in Germany
| Variable | Model without interaction variable | Model with interaction variable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | P-value | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Exenatide once weekly vs liraglutide once daily | 1.78 (1.62–1.96) | <0.0001 | 1.45 (1.18–1.77) | 0.0003 |
| Age, years | ||||
| 51–60 vs ≤50 | 1.10 (1.03–1.18) | 0.0081 | 1.07 (0.99–1.16) | 0.0738 |
| 61–70 vs ≤50 | 1.11 (1.03–1.19) | 0.0058 | 1.04 (0.96–1.13) | 0.3163 |
| >70 vs ≤50 | 0.94 (0.87–1.02) | 0.1360 | 0.89 (0.82–0.98) | 0.0134 |
| Exenatide/liraglutide × age 51–60 yearsa | – | – | 1.13 (0.94–1.36) | 0.1866 |
| Exenatide/liraglutide × age 61–70 yearsa | – | – | 1.37 (1.14–1.64) | 0.0008 |
| Exenatide/liraglutide × age >70 yearsa | – | – | 1.30 (1.07–1.59) | 0.0099 |
| Metformin + sulfonylurea vs metformin | 1.30 (1.20–1.42) | <0.0001 | 1.30 (1.20–1.42) | <0.0001 |
| Metformin + DPP-4i vs metformin | 1.16 (1.05–1.28) | 0.0042 | 1.16 (1.05–1.28) | 0.0041 |
| Metformin + insulin vs metformin | 1.48 (1.38–1.58) | <0.0001 | 1.48 (1.39–1.58) | <0.0001 |
| Insulin vs metformin | 0.85 (0.76–0.95) | 0.0060 | 0.85 (0.76–0.96) | 0.0066 |
| DPP-4i vs metformin | 0.76 (0.65–0.89) | 0.0005 | 0.76 (0.65–0.89) | 0.0005 |
| GLP-1RA monotherapy vs metformin | 0.34 (0.30–0.38) | <0.0001 | 0.34 (0.30–0.38) | <0.0001 |
| Other combinations vs metformin | 0.93 (0.84–1.04) | 0.1881 | 0.93 (0.83–1.03) | 0.1732 |
| Model fitness: | ||||
| Pseudo-R2 | 0.041 | – | 0.041 | – |
| AIC | 36,278 | – | 36,271 | – |
| BIC | 36,396 | – | 36,413 | – |
Note:
a
Reference group: exenatide/liraglutide × age ≤50 years.
Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; CI, confidence interval; DPP-4i, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor; GLP-1RA, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; PDC, proportion of days covered.