Gastrointestinal health care resource use and costs associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs versus acetaminophen: Retrospective cohort study of an elderly population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate gastrointestinal (GI) health care resource use and direct costs associated with prescription nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in an elderly population. METHODS: Using the Government of Quebec's health insurance database, we obtained the medical, pharmaceutical, and demographic records of 73,850 senior citizens who, between 1993 and 1997, had either an NSAID or an acetaminophen prescription dispensed. The date of their first dispensed prescription for an NSAID or acetaminophen was termed their index date. Patients who were not taking oral corticosteroids or anticoagulants at their index date, were not diagnosed with cancer at their index date, and were not hospitalized and did not have any GI events during the year prior to their index date were included in the study. Patients who had a dispensed NSAID prescription at their index date formed the NSAID cohort; the others formed the acetaminophen cohort. All patients were followed up for 2 years. The daily direct costs of GI events incurred during NSAID therapy by the NSAID cohort were compared with those incurred during a similar followup period by the acetaminophen cohort. The difference in these average daily costs was attributed to NSAID use. RESULTS: The NSAID cohort included 5,268 senior citizens and the acetaminophen cohort 2,245. More GI adverse events were observed in the NSAID cohort (odds ratio 2.48, 95% confidence interval 2.06, 3.00). The average daily direct cost of GI events for a day of NSAID therapy attributed to the NSAIDs was $0.84 (Canadian). On average, for each Canadian dollar spent on NSAIDs, an additional $0.66 was spent on their side effects. CONCLUSION: Safer alternatives to NSAIDs would significantly reduce medical care costs for patients in need of NSAID therapy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".