MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2560062761 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.2239.2239

A Prospective Cost Analysis of Non-Myeloablative Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

2005· article· en· W2560062761 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Skedgel, Jo-Ann Edwards, Jean Roy, Andrea McNeil, Yvonne Gulliver, Peter Duggan, Darrell White, Stephen Couban

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of NewfoundlandHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationEmergency medicineHematopoietic cellActivity-based costingPsychological interventionIndirect costsIntensive care medicineHealth careSurgeryStem cellHaematopoiesisNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an intensive medical therapy used to treat both malignant and non-malignant conditions. Non-myeloablative transplantation (NMT) is an emerging transplant modality often performed on an outpatient basis. While NMT is associated with fewer acute complications compared to myeloablative HSCT, long-term complications, particularly chronic graft vs host disease (GvHD), are of concern. To our knowledge, there have been few economic evaluations of NMT and none in a Canadian healthcare environment. We prospectively developed and validated a process for capturing the costs and outcomes of NMT in order to estimate the cost per patient of NMT at a Canadian transplant centre. Ten consecutive patients undergoing NMT were followed from the first day of conditioning (Day −11) until either 1 year post-transplant or death. Donor costs were also recorded. All patient encounters, procedures and interventions during the study period were prospectively recorded. Nursing and other non-physician human resource costs were calculated based on recorded contact times and salaries. Physician costs were derived from Nova Scotia fee codes. Costs of hospital admissions were derived from Ontario Case Costing Initiative (OCCI) data and were specific to the primary diagnosis. Drug costs were based on acquisition costs at hospital and community pharmacies. Materials and equipment costs were based on costs at the QEII Health Sciences Centre, Halifax NS. The proportion of administrative costs to direct costs was derived from OCCI data and applied to local direct costs. All costs are in 2005 Canadian dollars ($CAN). Ten patients were followed for a median of 12 months (range 3.6–12) from September 2003 to April 2005. Eight patients were male and the median age of the cohort was 60 years (19–73). Five patients had AML; 3 had lymphoma and 2 had multiple myeloma.Cyclophosphamide and fludarabine were used as conditioning and tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil were used as GvHD prophylaxis. There were 7 hospital admissions among the 10 patients: 3 before day 100 and 4 after day 100. Eight patients survived at least one year post-transplant. No patients developed acute GvHD, while all 8 patients surviving to 1 year post-transplant developed chronic GvHD. Three patients relapsed within 1 year. The average cost per NMT was $CAN 43,377 of which $CAN 31,761 were recipient costs, $CAN 2,562 were donor costs and $CAN 8,675 were equipment and overhead costs. The key cost driver was hospital admissions for complications and/or palliative care at $CAN 9,793 per recipient. Physician fees ($CAN 6,958) and chemotherapy ($CAN 6,485) were also significant. Compared to published estimates of the cost of myeloablative HSCT, NMT appears considerably less costly in the first year post-transplant. Our analysis suggests that the lower cost of NMT was largely attributable to the limited amount of inpatient care these patients received. Further follow-up will be informative since the major complications of NMT including chronic GvHD and relapse may impact per transplant cost after the first year post-transplant. Direct comparison with myeloablative HSCT using our prospective costing method is also planned.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,484
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,962

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207