Comparison of medical resources and costs among patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance in the Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation (ACE) trial (ISRCTN91899513) evaluated the alpha-glucosidase inhibitor acarbose, compared with placebo, in 6522 patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance in China and showed a reduced incidence of diabetes. We assessed the within-trial medical resource use and costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). METHODS: Resource use data were collected prospectively within the ACE trial. Hospitalizations, medications, and outpatient visits were valued using Chinese unit costs. Medication use was measured in drug days, with cardiovascular and diabetes drugs summed across the trial by participant. Health-related quality of life was captured using the EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level questionnaire. Regression analyses were used to compare resource use, costs, and QALYs, accounting for regional variation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% yearly. RESULTS: Hospitalizations were 6% higher in the acarbose arm during the trial (rate ratio 1.06, p = .009), but there were no significant differences in total inpatient days (rate ratio 1.04, p = .30). Total costs per participant, including study drug, were significantly higher for acarbose (¥ [Yuan] 56 480, £6213), compared with placebo (¥48 079, £5289; mean ratio 1.18, p < 0.001). QALYs reported by participants in the acarbose arm (3.96 QALYs) were marginally higher than in the placebo arm (3.95 QALYs), but the difference was not statistically significant (0.01 QALYs; p = .58). CONCLUSIONS: Acarbose, compared with placebo, participants cost more due to study drug costs and reported no statistically significant difference in QALYs. These higher within-trial costs could potentially be offset in future by savings from the acarbose-related lower incidence of diabetes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".