MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017604803 · doi:10.1177/171516350513800505

Patient Acceptance and Economic Outcomes of Rabeprazole Therapy — A Pharmacist-Initiated Interchange Protocol

2005· article· en· W2017604803 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Charity Evans, Gordon Stueck, Sandhya Koobair, Jaimala Maharaj, Vikesh Maraj

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLansoprazoleRabeprazoleMedicineOmeprazolePantoprazoleProton-pump inhibitorInternal medicinePharmacyPharmacistFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The purpose of this study was to measure the patient acceptance, as well as the individual and provincial cost savings, of switching from other proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapies to the less costly rabeprazole. Design and setting: This was an uncontrolled, prospective study conducted at a community pharmacy in conjunction with the physicians at the local medical clinic. Patients: Male and female patients over 18 years of age who were currently taking a PPI (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole) regularly and who were under the care of a participating physician were eligible. Patients who were pregnant or breast-feeding were excluded. All patients were switched from their current PPI therapy to rabeprazole 20 mg daily, except for two patients, whose previous dose of omeprazole 20 mg twice daily was changed to rabeprazole 20 mg twice daily. Results: Twenty-six patients were enrolled. All patients were Caucasian; 15/26 (58%) were female, and 11/26 (42%) were male; ages ranged from 43 to 89 years. The PPI therapy being used by patients was omeprazole 20 mg, 77% (20/26); pantoprazole 40 mg, 11.5% (3/26); and lansoprazole 30 mg, 11.5% (3/26). At a six-month follow-up (minimum four months of rabeprazole therapy), seven (26.9%) patients had switched back to their original PPI therapy, while 19 (73.1%) had continued on rabeprazole. Five of the seven (71.4%) patients returned to omeprazole therapy, two (28.6%) returned to lansoprazole, and none (0%) returned to pantoprazole. Annual combined cost savings to individual patients was calculated at $4617.48; cost savings to the provincial government were $5083.56. Conclusion: Based on the literature, on the fact that 73.1% of patients found rabeprazole to be equivalent in efficacy and tolerability to the other more costly PPIs, and on the potential cost savings demonstrated, we believe that rabeprazole should be considered as a first choice for PPI 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→