Savings from the use of a probiotic formula in the prophylaxis of antibiotic-associated diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and particularly Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) are the most common causes of healthcare associated infectious diarrhea. A double-blind, dose response, placebo-controlled trial of the probiotic formula (Bio-K+ Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R formula) for prophylaxis of AAD and CDAD was published in 2010. The Bio-K+ Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R formula is a registered trademark of Bio-K Plus International Inc. (Laval, Québec, Canada). Results indicated that the incidence of AAD and CDAD were lower for patients assigned to the probiotic formula compared with the placebo option. The present study aims to estimate the savings in direct medical costs that might result from the use of two different doses of the probiotic formula vs placebo. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis was conducted to compare the two doses of the probiotic formula compared to placebo. The analysis was based upon published data and adjusted to the North American context. RESULTS: Economic analyses showed that the use of the probiotic formula would result in estimated mean per patients savings of US$1968 for the single dose and US$2661 for the double dose compared with the placebo option if used an average of 13 days by all patients at risk of developing AAD and CDAD. LIMITATIONS: Several key parameters considered within the economic model were not captured within the Gao et al. study. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted to address this issue. CONCLUSION: The use of the probiotic formula in prophylaxis of AAD and CDAD would lead to estimated savings in direct medical costs that would substantially offset its acquisition cost. Treating 1000 hospitalized patients on antibiotics with the double dose of the product compared to current practice would save a single payer system the sum of $2,661,218.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".