ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020
Redundant medication use during acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in hospitalized patients.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Few clinical studies have evaluated redundant therapy during an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in hospitalized patients, but clinical practice guidelines endorse this practice. Objective The aim of this study is to measure the frequency of redundant therapy and explore its association with clinical outcomes, adverse effects, and cost among adults hospitalized with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Setting Six hospitals within an academic health system in the United States. Method A retrospective cohort study of adults with a principal diagnosis of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2016 was performed. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received redundant therapy during inpatient management of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Results Overall, 137 patients were included and 99 (72.7%) received redundant medication therapy. Redundant therapy was not associated with significant differences in clinical outcomes such as median hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission, tachycardia, thrush, psychiatric symptoms or urinary retention in the univariate or multivariate analyses. The median medication acquisition cost per patient was nearly 11-fold higher among those receiving redundant medication therapy [$135.14 (49.21) vs 12.50 (17.02); p < 0.001]. After controlling for confounding variables using multivariate linear regression, the cost of redundant medication therapy was $50.20 higher on average (p < 0.001). Conclusion Redundant inhaled therapy for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the hospital setting was not associated with improved clinical outcomes or more adverse effects but did significantly increase medication cost. The findings of this study should be considered exploratory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32951179What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.