Fiche publication
Date publication
mai 2020
Journal
Bone marrow transplantation
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Dr CAILLOT Denis
,
Pr DECONINCK Eric
,
Pr NERICH Virginie
,
Dr CHRETIEN Marie-Lorraine
Tous les auteurs :
Van de Wyngaert Z, Nerich V, Fouquet G, Chrétien ML, Caillot D, Azar N, Garderet L, Lenain P, Macro M, Bourhis JH, Belhocine R, Jaccard A, Karlin L, Bobin A, Moya N, Systchenko T, Gruchet C, Giraud C, Guidez S, Darras C, Princet I, Touzeau C, Moreau P, Hulin C, Deconinck E, Limat S, Leleu X,
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) can be performed using plerixafor, which is expensive, or high-dose cyclophosphamide (HDCy). We hypothesized that the overall cost of mobilization with plerixafor might not be greater if the cost of complication management was considered. We performed a cost analysis of these two strategies. This multicentric observational study recruited patients with myeloma who underwent a first PBSC mobilization. We considered direct medical costs, including hospitalization, mobilization agents, apheresis, and supportive treatments. We included 111 patients, 54 and 57 in the HDCy and plerixafor groups, respectively. Cost of mobilization with HDCy was 5097 ± 2982€ vs. 10958 ± 1789€ for plerixafor (p < 0.0001). Cost of agents used was 1287 ± 779€ vs. 6552 ± 509€, respectively (p = 0.0009). The mean number of days of hospitalization was 2 and 2.1 days, respectively (p = 0.035). All patients achieved the minimum PBSC collection target (p = 1.0); however, ASCT was performed with HDCy in 67% patients and with plerixafor in 86% (p = 0.02). Plerixafor mobilization incurred a greater cost, mostly due to the greater cost of the drug. Hospitalization length in the two groups was similar in our series. Interestingly, plerixafor appeared to be a very effective and safe mobilizing approach translating into a greater ASCT success.
Référence
Bone Marrow Transplant.. 2020 May 23;:
