The use of DRG for identifying clinical trials centers with high recruitment potential: a feasability study.

Recruitment of large samples of patients is crucial for evidence level and efficacy of clinical trials (CT). Clinical Trial Recruitment Support Systems (CTRSS) used to estimate patient recruitment are generally specific to Hospital Information Systems and few were evaluated on a large number of trials. Our aim was to assess, on a large number of CT, the usefulness of commonly available data as Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) databases in order to estimate potential recruitment. We used the DRG database of a large French multicenter medical institution (1.2 million inpatient stays and 400 new trials each year). Eligibility criteria of protocols were broken down into in atomic entities (diagnosis, procedures, treatments...) then translated into codes and operators recorded in a standardized form. A program parsed the forms and generated requests on the DRG database. A large majority of selection criteria could be coded and final estimations of number of eligible patients were close to observed ones (median difference = 25). Such a system could be part of the feasability evaluation and center selection process before the start of the clinical trial.

Cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of double versus single cord blood transplantation in adults with acute leukemia in France.

Double cord blood transplantation extends the use of cord blood to adults for whom a single unit is not available, but the procedure is limited by its cost. To evaluate outcomes and cost-effectiveness of double compared to single cord blood transplantation, we analyzed 134 transplants in adults with acute leukemia in first remission. Transplants were performed in France with reduced intensity or myeloablative conditioning regimens. Costs were estimated from donor search to 1 year after transplantation. A Markov decision analysis model was used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years and cost-effectiveness ratio within 4 years. The overall survival at 2 years after single and double cord blood transplants was 42% versus 62%, respectively (P=0.03), while the leukemia-free-survival was 33% versus 53%, respectively (P=0.03). The relapse rate was 21% after double transplants and 42% after a single transplant (P=0.006). No difference was observed for non-relapse mortality or chronic graft-versus-host-disease. The estimated costs up to 1 year after reduced intensity conditioning for single and double cord blood transplantation were € 165,253 and €191,827, respectively. The corresponding costs after myeloablative conditioning were € 192,566 and € 213,050, respectively. Compared to single transplants, double cord blood transplantation was associated with supplementary costs of € 21,302 and € 32,420 up to 4 years, but with increases in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.616 and 0.484, respectively, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of € 34,581 and €66,983 in the myeloablative and reduced intensity conditioning settings, respectively. Our results showed that for adults with acute leukemia in first complete remission in France, double cord transplantation is more cost-effective than single cord blood transplantation, with better outcomes, including quality-adjusted life-years.

[Treatment of malignant non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Economic impact of rituximab (Mabthera) versus conventional chemotherapy]. / Traitement des lymphomes malins non hodgkiniens. Répercussions économiques de l'utilisation du rituximab (Mabthera) versus chimiothérapies conventionnelles.

The monoclonal antibody rituximab, targeted against the CD20 antigen, has shown efficacy in patients with follicular lymphoma who relapse or fail to response to conventional chemotherapy. We evaluated the economic impact of using rituximab for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NLH) in comparison with conventional chemotherapy protocols (CHOP or CHVP). In this retrospective study conducted between 1998 and 2000, the direct costs of treating inpatients with NHL rituximab (n=20) or CHOP/CHVP (n=17) were compared. Results, including costs of administering chemotherapy and adverse events, showed that the average cost per patient was comparable for the two strategies (9700 euro for rituximab, versus 8487 euro for conventional chemotherapy). In the rituximab group, the cost was mostly due to drug purchases. In the conventional chemotherapy group, outlays were related to drug-induced toxicity and longer hospital stay. Our results were similar to others described in the literature. Prospective studies are nevertheless needed for confirmation. For first-line treatement, the difference in the cost-effectiveness-ratio between rituximab and conventional drugs might be smaller, but sound data are not yet available.