| Literature DB >> 32447348 |
Zoé Van de Wyngaert1,2, Virginie Nerich3,4, Samuel Limat3,4, Xavier Leleu5, Guillemette Fouquet6, Marie-Lorraine Chrétien7, Denis Caillot7, Nabih Azar8, Laurent Garderet2,8, Pascal Lenain9, Margaret Macro10, Jean-Henri Bourhis11, Ramdane Belhocine2, Arnaud Jaccard12, Lionel Karlin13, Arthur Bobin14, Niels Moya14, Thomas Systchenko14, Cecile Gruchet14, Christine Giraud14, Stéphanie Guidez14, Claire Darras14, Isabelle Princet14, Cyrille Touzeau15, Philippe Moreau15, Cyrille Hulin16, Erik Deconinck17.
Abstract
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.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32447348 DOI: 10.1038/s41409-020-0940-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant ISSN: 0268-3369 Impact factor: 5.483