Extracorporeal photopheresis vs standard therapies for steroid‐refractory chronic graft‐vs‐host disease: Pharmacoeconomic assessment of hospital resource use in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed pharmacoeconomic costs associated with extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) compared with other available second-line therapies for chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGvHD) in a tertiary Spanish institution. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with steroid-refractory cGvHD were eligible. Data were collected retrospectively from index date until 1 year or relapse. Patients were distributed in two cohorts (ECP vs non-ECP), matched by age (≤ or > 40), hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HLA-identical sibling donor or other) and number of previous immunosuppressive lines (1, 2, or ≥ 3). Costs were assigned using the 2016 diagnosis-related group (DRG) system: DRG 579 (€22 383) overnight stay due to major complication (ie, sepsis, pneumonia, parenteral nutrition, or respiratory failure), and DRG 875 (€5154) if no major complication. The primary endpoint was healthcare resource utilization per patient. RESULTS: Forty patients (n = 20 per cohort) were included. Median age was 49, and 37.5% were female. Mean total cost per patient was €25 319 (95% CI: €17 049-€33 590) across the two cohorts, with a slightly lower mean cost per ECP-treated patient (€23 120) compared with the non-ECP cohort (€27 519; P = .597). Twenty-seven inpatient hospitalizations occurred among ECP-treated patients, vs 33 in the non-ECP cohort. Day hospital and external consultations were more frequent in the ECP cohort. However, fewer inpatient admissions included DRG 579 compared with the non-ECP cohort (44% vs 58%). Inpatient length of stay was slightly shorter in the ECP cohort (30 vs 49 days; P = .298). CONCLUSIONS: ECP treatment may yield economic savings in Spain through resource savings and moving costs toward outpatient care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".