Effect of Remission Definition on Healthcare Cost Savings Estimates for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Biologic Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sustained remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) results in healthcare utilization cost savings. We evaluated the variation in estimates of savings when different definitions of remission [2011 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean Definition, Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤ 3.3, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤ 2.8, and Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) ≤ 2.6] are applied. METHODS: The annual mean healthcare service utilization costs were estimated from provincial physician billing claims, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations, with linkage to clinical data from the Alberta Biologics Pharmacosurveillance Program (ABioPharm). Cost savings in patients who had a 1-year continuous period of remission were compared to those who did not, using 4 definitions of remission. RESULTS: In 1086 patients, sustained remission rates were 16.1% for DAS28, 8.8% for Boolean, 5.5% for CDAI, and 4.2% for SDAI. The estimated mean annual healthcare cost savings per patient achieving remission (relative to not) were SDAI $1928 (95% CI 592, 3264), DAS28 $1676 (95% CI 987, 2365), and Boolean $1259 (95% CI 417, 2100). The annual savings by CDAI remission per patient were not significant at $423 (95% CI -1757, 2602). For patients in DAS28, Boolean, and SDAI remission, savings were seen both in costs directly related to RA and its comorbidities, and in costs for non-RA-related conditions. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of the healthcare cost savings varies according to the remission definition used in classifying patient disease status. The highest point estimate for cost savings was observed in patients attaining SDAI remission and the least with the CDAI; confidence intervals for these estimates do overlap. Future pharmacoeconomic analyses should employ all response definitions in assessing the influence of treatment.
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 | 0.015 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".