Economic evaluation of a preemptive treatment strategy for invasive fungal infection in neutropenic patients with hematological diseases.

We compared the expected medical costs of empirical and preemptive treatment strategies for invasive fungal infection in neutropenic patients with hematological diseases. Based on the results of two clinical trials with different backgrounds reported by Oshima et al. [J Antimicrob Chemother 60(2):350-355; Oshima study] and Cordonnier et al. [Clin Infect Dis 48(8):1042-1051; PREVERT study], we developed a decision tree model that represented the outcomes of empirical and preemptive treatment strategies, and estimated the expected medical costs of medications and examinations in the two strategies. We assumed that micafungin was started in the empirical group at 5 days after fever had developed, while voriconazole was started in the preemptive group only when certain criteria, such as positive test results of imaging studies and/or serum markers, were fulfilled. When we used an incidence of positive test results of 6.7 % based on the Oshima study, the expected medical costs of the empirical and preemptive groups were 288,198 and 150,280 yen, respectively. Even in the case of the PREVERT study, in which the incidence of positive test results was 32.9 %, the expected medical costs in the empirical and preemptive groups were 291,871 and 284,944 yen, respectively. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the expected medical costs in the preemptive group would exceed those in the empirical group when the incidence of positive test results in the former was over 34.4 %. These results suggest that a preemptive treatment strategy can be expected to reduce medical costs compared with empirical therapy in most clinical settings.

Decision analysis for donor selection in stem cell transplantation-HLA-8/8 allele-matched unrelated donor vs HLA-1 AG mismatched related donor.

Risk of relapse during the unrelated donor coordination period biases comparisons between allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from an HLA 8 of 8 allele-matched unrelated donor (8/8 MUD) and that from a related donor with an HLA-1 antigen mismatch in the graft-versus-host (GVH) direction (RD/1AGMM-GVH). To reduce this bias, we performed a decision analysis focusing on acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first complete remission (CR1). The primary outcome measure was 5-year survival probability with or without quality-of-life (QOL) adjustment. A baseline analysis showed that the decision to perform MUD transplantation was superior to that to perform RD/1AGMM-GVH transplantation for patients with AML or ALL. However, in the ALL cohort, the direction of superiority was reversed when the interval between CR1 and 8/8 MUD transplantation was >5.5 months (without QOL adjustment) or >6 months (after QOL adjustment) or when overall survival of RD/1AGMM-GVH transplantation improved by 1.3% without QOL adjustment and 2.1% after QOL adjustment. In conclusion, 8/8 MUD should be prioritized in transplantation for AML and ALL in CR1. However, the MUD coordination period and improvements in RD/1AGMM-GVH transplantation might change the donor selection priority in transplantation for ALL in CR1.

Outcomes and costs of autologous stem cell mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF vs G-CSF alone.

Chemotherapy plus G-CSF (C+G) and G-CSF alone are two of the most common methods used to mobilize CD34(+) cells for autologous hematopoietic SCT (AHSCT). In order to compare and determine the real-world outcomes and costs of these strategies, we performed a retrospective study of 226 consecutive patients at 11 medical centers (64 lymphoma, 162 multiple myeloma), of whom 55% of lymphoma patients and 66% of myeloma patients received C+G. Patients with C+G yielded more CD34(+) cells/day than those with G-CSF alone (lymphoma: average 5.51 × 10(6) cells/kg on day 1 vs 2.92 × 10(6) cells/kg, P=0.0231; myeloma: 4.16 × 10(6) vs 3.69 × 10(6) cells/kg, P<0.00001) and required fewer days of apheresis (lymphoma: average 2.11 vs 2.96 days, P=0.012; myeloma: 2.02 vs 2.83 days, P=0.0015), although nearly all patients ultimately reached the goal of 2 × 10(6) cells/kg. With the exception of higher rates of febrile neutropenia in myeloma patients with C+G (17% vs 2%, P<0.05), toxicities and other outcomes were similar. Mobilization with C+G cost significantly more (lymphoma: median $10,300 vs $7300, P<0.0001; myeloma: $8800 vs $5600, P<0.0001), although re-mobilization adds $6700 for drugs alone. Our results suggest that although both C+G and G-CSF alone are effective mobilization strategies, C+G may be more cost-effective for patients at high risk of insufficient mobilization.