MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065964632

Gender Differences in Inhaled Pharmacotherapy Utilization in Patients with Obstructive Airway Diseases (OADs): A Population-Based Study

2020· article· en· W7065964632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDPharmacotherapyLogistic regressionAirwayRetrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalCohort
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joseph Emil Amegadzie,1 John-Michael Gamble,2 Jamie Farrell,1 Zhiwei Gao1 1Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland, Canada; 2Faculty of Science, School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Zhiwei GaoFaculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, CanadaTel +1 7098646523Email zhiwei.gao@med.mun.caPurpose: Gender differences in the incidence, susceptibility and severity of many obstructive airway diseases (OADs) have been well recognized. However, gender differences in the inhaled pharmacotherapy profile are not well characterized.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate gender differences in new-users of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), short-or long-acting beta2-agonist (SABA or LABA), ICS/LABA, short-or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA or LAMA) among patients with asthma, COPD or asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). We used Clinical Practice Research Datalink to identify OAD patients, 18 years and older, who were new-users (1-year washout period) from 01-January-1998 to 31-July-2018. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine gender differences in each of the inhaled pharmacotherapies after controlling for potential confounders.Results: A total of 242,079 new-users (asthma: 84.93%; COPD: 10.19%; ACO: 4.88%) of inhaled pharmacotherapies were identified. The multivariable analyses showed that males with COPD were more likely to be a new user of a LABA (odds ratio [OR] 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12– 1.49), LAMA (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.10– 1.33), SAMA (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01– 1.21) and less likely to be a new user of a SABA (OR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80– 0.89) compared to females. Similar patterns were also observed for patients with ACO; males were more likely to be prescribed with LABA (OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.03– 1.55), LAMA (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.11– 1.48), SAMA (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.11– 1.48), and less likely to be a new user of a SABA (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82– 0.96). Also, males with asthma were more likely to be a new-user of ICS/LABA (OR 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08– 1.23) and less likely to start an ICS (OR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95– 0.99) in comparison with females.Conclusion: Our study showed significant gender differences in new-users of inhaled pharmacotherapies among OAD patients. Adjusting for proxies of disease severity, calendar year, smoking and socioeconomic status did not change the association by gender.Keywords: inhaled pharmacotherapies, asthma, COPD, asthma-COPD overlap, gender, drug utilization

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207