Cost Analysis of Monitoring Asthma Treatment using Sputum Cell Counts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a four-centre trial, the use of sputum cell counts (sputum strategy [SS]) to guide treatment had resulted in fewer and less severe exacerbations without the need for a higher corticosteroid dose, compared with the use of symptoms and spirometry (clinical strategy [CS]). objective: To compare the cost of the SS with the CS in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: In 39 patients (19 in the SS, 20 in the CS) from one of the centres, the cost (third-party payer) of the two treatment strategies was compared. Resource use data were collected using a structured questionnaire. Corresponding unit costs in 2006 Canadian dollars were obtained. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics of the patients were similar to the study population at the four centres. In the SS, the number of visits to a family physician for health disorders indirectly related to asthma (P=0.003) and the amount of inhaled long-acting beta-agonists (P=0.007) were less than that of the CS. While the total estimated median cost per patient for spirometry ($393; range $299 to $487) was less than that for sputum induction ($1,008; range $907 to $1,411), the total cost of the SS ($2,265; range $1,466 to $4,347) was less than that of the CS ($3369; range $2208 to $3927) (P=0.216). This cost difference was due to lower costs of physician and hospital visits and services (P=0.078), of inhaled short-acting bronchodilators (P=0.067), of long-acting beta-agonists (P=0.002) and of inhaled corticosteroids (P=0.064) in the SS. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate to severe asthma, the use of sputum cell counts to guide treatment is more effective and is likely to be less costly than management using symptoms and spirometry.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".