Analisi costi-efficacia di 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetano (Zevalin®) vs. terapie attualmente disponibili nel trattamento dei pazienti affetti da Linfoma Non-Hodgkin (LNH) refrattario o recidivato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to compare Italian healthcare-related costs and effectiveness of 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin®) vs. currently available II and III line therapies (chemotherapy; radiotherapy; stem cell transplant) for relapsing or refractory Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from Italian National Healthcare Service (INHS) perspective. Clinical, epidemiological and healthcare-related resource consumption data were collected from four independent sources: three clinical databases created in Canada, The Netherlands and United Kingdom (currently available III line therapies) and one published clinical trial (90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan); further inpatient and outpatient healthcare-related resource consumption data were provided by a Dutch costing study. Inpatient and outpatient healthcare-related procedures were evaluated according to INHS tariffs, provided that 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan was administered in day-hospital setting. Whenever not included in INHS tariffs, drugs were mainly costed according to Italian National Therapeutic Formulary. Costs are expressed in euro 2005. Per patient cost for 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan equals 17,424.84 euro, whereas the average per patient cost for currently available II and III line therapies reaches 6,870.93 euro (95% CI: 533.67-13,208.19 euro). As far as effectiveness is concerned, 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan performs better than currently available II and III line therapies both in terms of average and median therapy-free survival (+ 0.34 years and + 0.38 years, respectively); both the differences reach statistical significance (p
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".