Reduced drug costs from switching hemodialysis patients from epoetin alfa in multidose vials to pre-filled syringes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate epoetin alfa drug costs in hemodialysis (HD) patients after a province-wide switch from multidose vials (MDV) to prefilled syringes (PFS). METHODS: A retrospective study of epoetin alfa drug costs and estimated doses based on these costs during a six-month period of MDV usage (2007) were compared to a PFS usage period (2008). Data were collected from quarterly counts of HD patients receiving epoetin alfa in the Manitoba Renal Program (MRP) and monthly inventory billing records. RESULTS: 756 patients who received epoetin alfa MDV were compared to 799 patients who received epoetin alfa PFS. Average weekly dose calculated from drug costs was 13,282 units (MDV) versus 11,689 units (PFS). Average weekly costs were $195.71 (MDV) versus $183.23 (PFS). This translated to an estimated $12.48 per patient per week in savings ($518,519 annual savings across the Manitoba Renal Program). CONCLUSION: The switch from epoetin alfa MDV to epoetin alfa PFS realized cost savings, likely as a result of reduced drug wastage.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".