Utilization and cost comparison of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in inpatient and outpatient hospital settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization and associated costs of epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DARB), two erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis in inpatient and outpatient hospital settings. METHODS: An analysis of medical claims recorded between January 2006 and December 2009 was conducted using the Premier Perspective Comparative Hospital database. Patients included were ≥18 years old with cancer and chemotherapy or with pre-dialysis CKD and with ≥1 claim for EPO or DARB during a hospital inpatient or outpatient treatment episode. Patients treated with both ESAs or who were receiving dialysis were excluded. Mean cumulative drug costs and dose ratios (units EPO: mcg DARB) were calculated using cumulative dose and April 2010 wholesale acquisition costs. RESULTS: Cancer chemotherapy: 13,832 inpatient stays (EPO: 10,454; DARB: 3378) and 5590 outpatient treatment episodes (EPO: 2856; DARB: 2734) were identified. The inpatient and outpatient populations reported ESA dose ratios of 230:1 and 238:1 with DARB cost premiums of 42% (EPO: $948; DARB: $1348) and 38% (EPO: $3358; DARB: $4627), respectively. CKD: 148,746 hospital stays (EPO: 116,017; DARB: 32,729) and 11,012 outpatient treatment episodes (EPO: 6921; DARB 4091) were identified. The inpatient and outpatient populations reported ESA dose ratios of 251:1 and 257:1 with DARB cost premiums of 30% (EPO: $566; DARB: $738) and 27% (EPO: $2077; DARB: $2642), respectively. LIMITATIONS: The lack of randomization may have led to confounding by indication. In addition, statistical significance must be interpreted with caution in studies involving large samples. CONCLUSIONS: This study of 19,422 patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and 159,758 patients with pre-dialysis CKD reported ESA dose ratios ranging from 230:1-257:1 (units EPO: mcg DARB) and associated cost premiums of 27-42% for DARB.
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 | 0.000 | 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".