The Burden of Illness in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: No recent Canadian studies with physician- and spirometry-confirmed diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that assessed the burden of COPD have been published. OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs associated with maintenance therapy and treatment for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) over a one-year period. METHODS: Respirologists, internists and family practitioners from across Canada enrolled patients with an established diagnosis of moderate to severe COPD (Global initiative for chonic Obstructive Lung Disease stages 2 and 3) confirmed by postbronchodilator spirometry. Patient information and health care resources related to COPD maintenance and physician-documented AECOPD over the previous year were obtained by chart review and patient survey. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (59.3% male; mean age 70.4 years; mean pack years smoked 45.6; mean duration of COPD 8.2 years; mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s 58.0% predicted) were enrolled at 23 sites across Canada. The average annual COPD-related cost per patient was $4,147. Across all 285 patients, maintenance costs were $2,475 per patient, of which medications accounted for 71%. AECOPD treatment costs were $1,673 per patient, of which hospitalizations accounted for 82%. Ninety-eight patients (34%) experienced a total of 157 AECOPD. Treatment of these AECOPD included medications and outpatient care, 19 emergency room visits and 40 hospitalizations (mean length of stay 8.9 days). The mean cost per AECOPD was $3,036. DISCUSSION: The current costs associated with moderate and severe COPD are considerable and will increase in the future. Appropriate use of medications and strategies to prevent hospitalizations for AECOPD may reduce COPD-related costs because these were the major cost drivers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".