220 Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive erosive, early rheumatoid arthritis in the United States, Germany, Spain and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: RA is a chronic, inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The AMPLE trial was a head-to-head, randomised study comparing SC abatacept with SC adalimumab. A recent post hoc analysis showed improved efficacy for abatacept in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA (defined as: disease duration ≤6 months, RF or anti-citrullinated protein antibody seropositivity and >1 radiographic erosion) compared with adalimumab. Methods: A previously published decision tree was used to compare the cost per response of abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients over a 2-year time horizon. Clinical inputs were based on a post hoc analysis of the AMPLE trial in patients with or without seropositive, erosive early RA. Response was based on ACR20/50/70/90 and HAQ-DI. Unit costs for direct medical costs of AEs were based on local tariffs for disease-related groups and the ex-manufacturer price, including mandatory reductions, pay-back and transparent discounts for drugs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".