Budget impact analysis of treatment‐free remission in nilotinib‐treated Japanese chronic myeloid leukemia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment-free remission (TFR), in which patients discontinue pharmacotherapy and remain in molecular remission, is an emerging treatment goal for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Attainment of TFR requires an increased frequency of molecular monitoring, to ensure that patients maintain a deep molecular response. The objective of this analysis was to assess the economic impact of stopping nilotinib among Japanese TFR-eligible patients. A Markov model evaluated the economic impact of TFR among the study population, TFR-eligible CML patients diagnosed since 2012. The model compared patients who had discontinued tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment (ie, attempted TFR) with patients that continued TKI treatment. A 3-y time horizon was modeled from a Japanese public payer perspective. Costs associated with drug treatment, hospital/physician visits, and molecular monitoring were considered. TFR-eligible patients were calculated from Japanese CML incidence rates and efficacy was derived from nilotinib trials. Japanese co-payment maximums were utilized to assess the patient perspective. An estimated 761 and 140 patients were eligible for first- and second-line nilotinib, respectively, in 2019. Assuming that 100% of eligible patients complied, TFR was associated with cost savings of ¥7 625 174 640 (US$66 567 775) over 3 y. In scenarios with reduced willingness to attempt TFR, cost savings persisted. Achievement of TFR was estimated to markedly reduce out-of-pocket expenses for CML patients, regardless of the timing of relapse. Stopping nilotinib for TFR-eligible patients in Japan may result in significant cost savings to both payers and patients. Monitoring costs contributed little to overall annual costs and decreased over time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".