Funding the New Biologics – What Can We Learn from Infliximab? The CCOHTA Report: A Gastroenterologist’s Viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of severe Crohn's disease is difficult, and approximately 20% of patients do not respond to conventional therapy, including corticosteroids and immunosuppressives. Infliximab is one of the only treatments of proven efficacy in this group. Awareness of its benefits and risks is incomplete, because the drug has only recently been introduced and published research data are relatively sparse. Economic analyses help to evaluate the value of interventions that are both effective and expensive, but their validity is compromised by input data that involve questionable assumptions. They should not, therefore, be the only basis for funding decisions. Patients with severe Crohn's disease are frequently unable to be gainfully employed and thus incur significant indirect costs. In a recent study by the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), infliximab was deemed to not meet commonly accepted standards of cost effectiveness. This economic analysis did not incorporate indirect costs, and thus was inherently flawed and likely underestimated infliximab's value. The CCOHTA report also used population data from a period of time during which treatment of Crohn's disease was undergoing major transition. The study population was based in Minnesota and thus might not be applicable to Canada. Although they are routinely used in cost effectiveness models, quality-adjusted life-years gained are difficult to translate into practice, and the health care resources required to induce remission (or some other clinically meaningful result) might be a preferable measure. The CCOHTA report also did not include concomitant therapy with immunosuppressives, despite growing evidence for its benefit. Instead, it considered 'usual care', but, given the lack of effective treatment for many patients with Crohn's disease, such an option constitutes 'no care' and continued suffering. Economic analyses should not be the only basis on which decisions regarding the funding of infliximab, or other new agents, are made.
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 | 0.055 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".