MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287063926 · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2006.12.7.578

PPIs Are Therapeutically Interchangeable and Ideal for a Managed Care Intervention Such as Therapeutic MAC

2006· letter· en· W2287063926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian K. Crownover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managed Care Pharmacy · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRabeprazoleIntervention (counseling)PharmacyManaged careEsomeprazoleDrugIntensive care medicineActivity-based costingTherapeutic effectMedical emergencyEmergency medicinePharmacologyFamily medicineInternal medicineProton-pump inhibitorNursingHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PPIs Are Therapeutically Interchangeable and Ideal for a Managed Care Intervention Such as Therapeutic MAC Mabasa and Ma recently published a pharmacy claims database review on the effect of a therapeutic MAC intervention for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). A therapeutic MAC program establishes a therapeutic maximum allowable cost for a drug category and, unless medical necessity exists, requires patients to pay the drug cost difference when a nonpreferred agent is dispensed. In their Canadian employer group, rabeprazole 10 mg daily was the preferred agent,2 costing Can 71� daily. They found a 22.1% reduction in drug cost per patient per year (PPPY) in the intervention therapeutic MAC group (from Can $357 to Can $278 PPPY) versus a 4.1% increase in the comparison group (from Can $293 to Can $305 PPPY). In response to this study, Peter Wahlqvist, an employee of AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of esomeprazole, has written a letter to the editors of JMCP to highlight a number of fundamental flaws.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0240.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managed Care PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207