Cost burden of breakthrough hemolysis in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria receiving ravulizumab versus eculizumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Although complement inhibition is highly effective, patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) may experience intravascular breakthrough hemolysis (BTH). Underlying causes may include elevated free C5, pregnancy, or non-pregnancy complement-activating conditions (e.g. infections). This study compared BTH-related resource utilization and costs in PNH patients treated with eculizumab versus ravulizumab.Methods: A cost model was developed using data from a targeted literature review and a survey of experienced clinicians. Costs associated with BTH episodes were calculated by cause and weighted by the proportion attributed to each cause and the cost of treating each episode. The model captured direct medical costs in 2018 US dollars. Annual BTH-related healthcare resource utilization was also calculated.Results: BTH episodes in the literature were commonly associated with elevated lactate dehydrogenase and aspartate aminotransferase, hemoglobinuria, transfusion needs, and/or recurrence of PNH symptoms. The majority of BTH management costs in eculizumab-treated patients related to changing from the approved dosing regimen following an episode of BTH, rather than acute management. No ongoing dosing changes were expected for ravulizumab-treated patients following episodes of BTH, substantially reducing its ongoing management costs. Resource utilization was greater for eculizumab-treated patients than ravulizumab-treated patients due to higher incidence of BTH, and risk of elevated free C5-related BTH. Total incremental cost was substantially lower for ravulizumab- vs eculizumab-treated patients ($407 vs $9379); results were consistent when pregnant women were not included ($386 vs $3472).Conclusion: Overall resource use and costs for BTH are estimated to be lower for PNH patients receiving ravulizumab compared with eculizumab.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".