Do minitransplants have minicosts? A cost comparison between myeloablative and nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is a widely used, cost-intensive procedure. Although pretransplant nonmyeloablative (NMA) or reduced-intensity conditioning regimens appear very promising, prospective studies comparing this approach with the conventional myeloablative (MA) approach in specific hematologic diseases are necessary, especially in patients in whom the conventional approach is not contraindicated. Cost may be an important factor in the decision-making process. We compared the costs of MA and NMA transplants in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We estimated 1-year resource utilization in 12 consecutive MA patients (median age: 39 years) and in 11 consecutive NMA patients (median age: 58 years) who underwent HLA-identical sibling SCT for AML. Resources care expenses were valued using the average daily rate for personnel costs, supplies, and room costs. Other data were directly collected from the patients' charts. Despite a trend for lower costs in NMA patients during the first 6 months, costs during the 6-12-month period were significantly higher after NMA due to late complications and readmissions (P=0.03). Finally, mean 1-year costs were not different in MA and NMA patients (P=0.75). Prospective studies comparing conventional and NMA approaches in homogeneous populations should include economic items.

Cost analysis of plasma-exchange therapy for the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome. French Cooperative Group on Plasma Exchange in Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a cost analysis of therapeutic strategies with plasma exchange (PE) for the treatment of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial including 556 patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. We demonstrated that in the group with mild disease (walking possible) two PEs were more effective than none in shortening the time to beginning motor recovery. In the groups with moderate disease (walking impossible) and or severe disease (mechanically ventilated patients) four sessions were more effective than two and no more effective than six in shortening the time to recovery of walking with assistance and for the recovery rate of full muscle strength within 1 year. Data on outcomes and costs was collected. Complete cost data were available on 546 from the 556 patients of the trial. Costs were estimated from the viewpoint of the healthcare system and computed over a 1-year period. Because the analysis of medical outcomes did not show any difference regarding mortality but only on intermediate short-term and long-term outcomes, we carried out a cost minimization analysis. RESULTS: In two groups a dominant strategy appeared, with greater efficacy and lower costs in the two-PE arm for the mild group: 21,353 euros vs. 38,753 euros and in the four-PE arm in the moderate group: 59,480 euros vs. 80,737 euros. In the severe group four PEs were as efficient and somewhat less expensive than six: 57,621 vs. 61,056 euros. CONCLUSION: The treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome by PE at the onset of disease appears to have medical justification. The least expensive strategies are either more or equally efficient as more expensive strategies.