Saving in medical costs by achieving guideline‐based asthma symptom control: a population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma control is increasingly used as an outcome measure in asthma trials. Economic evaluations of asthma interventions require converting the impact of interventions on control to impact on resource use. The purpose of this study was to estimate the savings in direct costs by achieving asthma symptom control as defined in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2014 management strategy. METHODS: Adolescents and adults with asthma were recruited through random digit dialing. Asthma control per GINA and the use of healthcare resources were assessed at baseline and three-monthly visits up to 1 year. We used regression models to associate costs, measured in 2012 Canadian dollars ($), with symptom control, adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The final sample included 517 individuals (average age 48.9, 65.8% female) with mostly mild-moderate asthma contributing 2033 follow-up visits. In 598 (29.4%), 809 (39.8%), and 626 (30.8%) of visits, asthma was symptomatically controlled, partially controlled, or uncontrolled, respectively. The average 3-month costs of asthma were $134.5. Of these, 20.5% were attributable to inpatient care, 47.8% to outpatient care, and 31.5% to medication. Compared to controlled asthma, partially controlled asthma was associated with a nonsignificant increase of $9.5 (95% CI -$13.6 - $32.6) in adjusted 3-month costs and uncontrolled asthma with a statistically significant increase of $81.7 (95% CI $48.5 - $114.9). CONCLUSION: A substantial fraction of this population-based sample of largely mild-moderate asthmatics was symptomatically uncontrolled. Achieving symptom control was associated with a reduction in direct costs. The adjusted values from this study can be used to inform cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".