MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Azithromycin for the Prevention of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2023· article· en· W4386699192 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Safa Ahmadian, KATE JOHNSON, Joseph Khoa Ho, Don D. Sin, Larry D. Lynd, Mark Harrison, Mohsen Sadatsafavi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAzithromycinExacerbationCOPDIntensive care medicineAdverse effectCost effectivenessInternal medicineAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Daily oral azithromycin therapy can reduce the risk of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, given its adverse events and additional costs, it is not known whether adding long-term azithromycin as an adjunct therapy to inhaled pharmacotherapy is cost effective. Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of add-on azithromycin therapy in COPD as recommended by contemporary COPD management guidelines. Methods We extended a previously validated Canadian COPD policy model to include azithromycin-related inputs and outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of azithromycin was evaluated over a 20-year time horizon in patients who continue to exacerbate despite receiving maximal inhaled therapies. The benefit of azithromycin was modeled as a reduction in exacerbation rates. Adverse events included cardiovascular death, hearing loss, gastrointestinal symptoms, and antimicrobial resistance. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs in 2020 Canadian dollars ($) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) discounted at 1.5% per year. The analysis was stratified among patient subgroups based on exacerbation histories. Results In patients with a positive exacerbation history (one or more events in the previous 12 mo), azithromycin was associated with $49,732 costs, 7.65 QALYs, and 10.95 exacerbations per patient over 20 years. The corresponding values were $48,436, 7.62, and 11.86 for the reference group, resulting in an ICER of $43,200 per QALY gained. In patients defined as frequent exacerbators (two or more moderate or one or more severe events in the past 12 mo), the ICER was reduced to $8,862 per QALY gained. In patients with no history of exacerbation, azithromycin had lower QALYs and higher costs than the reference group. Conclusions Add-on azithromycin is cost effective in patients with a recent history of exacerbations at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000–$100,000/QALY. Guidelines should consider recommending add-on azithromycin for patients who had at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the past year, albeit more information about treatment efficacy would strengthen this recommendation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207