A review of cost–effectiveness evaluations as part of national health technology assessments of biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune chronic disease which is associated with an increasing disability in patients and high socioeconomic burden. Given the large number of economic evaluations considered by national health technology assessments (HTAs), this review attempts to clarify whether results from biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) economic evaluations form the basis of official recommendation by national HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, Scotland and England. The results show that evidence of cost-effectiveness was not equally perceived by decision makers and did not have equal weightage in defining the official listing of biologic DMARDs for the treatment of RA. As it has been demonstrated in previous studies, major barriers exist for the integration of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results with national HTA activity. In fact, as shown in this review, even when such analysis are available, cost-minimization and comparative effectiveness studies seemed to be preferred by some HTA agencies as tools to inform allocation of healthcare resources.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".