Factors associated with guideline-concordant maintenance inhaled medication for COPD: a population-based, longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite guideline recommendations, many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) do not receive or persist with guideline-concordant maintenance inhaled medications. We examined patient and health system factors associated with guideline concordance and persistence. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using administrative data from British Columbia, Canada (2011-2022). Patients aged ≥40 years with newly diagnosed COPD were included. Patients were classified as having high risk (≥2 outpatient or ≥1 inpatient exacerbation in the prior year) or low risk (≤1 outpatient exacerbation) of exacerbations, which we used to determine whether dispensed medications were concordant with guidelines. We used separate generalised linear models to evaluate the association between patient, clinical and health system factors and the initiation of guideline-concordant medications and subsequent persistence. RESULTS: We included 71 996 patients with a mean follow-up of 6.15 years (SD 2.65). 30.42% of patients initiated guideline-concordant treatment. Among those who initiated, the mean proportion of days covered (PDC) by guideline-concordant regimens was 31.93%. Patients at high risk of exacerbations initiated guideline-concordant regimens more often than those at low risk (mean 70.4% vs 13.3%) and had a higher mean PDC (57.33% vs 26.35%) per patient-year. Pulmonologist care and additional outpatient visits increased both initiation (OR 5.14, 95% CI 4.88 to 5.41 and OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.26, respectively) and persistence (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17 and OR 1.019, 95% CI 1.015 to 1.024, respectively) with guideline-concordant medications. CONCLUSION: Guideline-concordant use of maintenance inhaled medications is low. Increased access to outpatient and specialist care may support COPD management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".