MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386424490 · doi:10.7326/m23-0287

Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Disease Medicines' Availability in Low-Cost Generic Drug Programs in the United States

2023· article· en· W4386424490 on OpenAlexaff
Ivy T. Ton, Jungyeon Moon, Anthony Sengul, Freny Vaghaiwalla Mody, Janet K. Han, Cynthia A. Jackevicius

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationPharmacotherapyAnginaIntensive care medicineAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low-cost generic programs (LCGPs) that expand access to affordable cardiovascular disease (CVD) medicines can assist patients in achieving desired cardiovascular outcomes. It is important that LCGPs offer CVD medicines that promote evidence-based prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate LCGPs' coverage of evidence-based CVD medications using a clinical framework that examines coverage of core treatments, coverage of options with the highest-quality evidence, and the variety of medication options and strengths that create choices and allow dosing titration. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Publicly available LCGPs in March and April 2023 in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 19 LCGPs. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of LCGPs that offered evidence-based CVD medicines within a clinical framework for 6 CVDs (atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, post-acute coronary syndrome secondary prevention, and stable angina) according to 4 availability metrics (breadth, choice, high-quality evidence, and titratability). RESULTS: The availability of CVD medication varied by program, drug, and CVD condition. Some programs had more breadth and choice of coverage for most CVDs (H-E-B, Kroger, Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, and Walmart), whereas many had more focused coverage and others markedly limited offerings. Nearly all LCGPs offered angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, thiazides, and moderate-intensity statins, but availability was low for higher-cost or lower-use generics (antiplatelets and antiarrhythmics). Core pharmacotherapy coverage and choices were limited for atrial fibrillation and heart failure but widely available for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. LIMITATION: In-depth cost analysis was not investigated. CONCLUSION: Coverage of evidence-based medications for the 6 CVDs investigated varied by LCGP and condition. Because high availability of core CVD pharmacotherapy can enhance optimal disease state management, LCGPs should identify existing limitations in their coverage and continuously revise their formularies to improve the comprehensiveness of CVD medication coverage. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207