Costs of pharmacotherapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in relation to changing Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2007-2011-2017 guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common chronic noninfectious diseases. The clinical management is determined by patient assignment to the severity stage of the disease in accordance with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines. OBJECTIVES Our aim was to determine the economic implications of changing GOLD guidelines (2007, 2011, and 2017 updates) and their impact on the direct costs of pharmacological treatment of patients diagnosed with COPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS This analysis was based on data provided by a group of 298 out of 500 randomly selected primary care physicians in Poland (response rate, 59.6%). Each primary care physician provided information on 10 consecutive patients with COPD. These data were used to simulate the economic consequences of the 2007, 2011, and 2017 GOLD guideline updates. RESULTS Regardless of the GOLD guidelines used, pharmacotherapy of patients with a very severe form of COPD was most expensive. Pharmacotherapy costs would be reduced with each subsequent guideline. In the same group of 2597 COPD patients, the average monthly cost of the first‑line pharmacotherapy as well as the overall costs of pharmacotherapy (first- and second‑line) per patient would be the lowest when applying the therapeutic regimen in accordance with the 2017 GOLD guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of 2011 and 2017 GOLD guidelines, as compared with the 2007 update, would result in a reduction of direct costs of COPD treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".