4.4 Article

Costs of Pediatric Allogeneic Hematopoietic-Cell Transplantation

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 138-143

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.22250

关键词

allogeneic; complications; costs; hematopoietic-cell transplantation; pediatric

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA065493] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P01CA065493] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation (HCT), although curative for some high-risk diseases, is a complex and costly procedure. The costs of transplantation among children have not been described previously. Procedure. We compared the costs of HCT within the first 100-days among children who received myeloablative HCT from either a matched related donor (MRD, N=27), matched unrelated donor (MUD, N=28) or unrelated umbilical cord blood (UCB, N=91). We also conducted analyses to describe predictors of higher costs of transplantation. Results. The 100-day probabilities of overall survival were 96%, 96% and 87% for MRD, MUD and UCB, respectively. The mean cost per clay survived (excluding costs of graft acquisition) was $3,446 (standard deviation (SD), $851) for MRD, $4,050 (SD, $1,194) for MUD and $4,522 (SD, $2,053) for UCB recipients. The costs of MUD and UCB HCT remained similar when costs of graft acquisition were considered within total costs of transplantation. In multivariable analysis, adjusting for important patient, disease, and transplant related characteristics, factors associated with higher costs within the first 100-days were HCT using MUD or UCB, Lansky score <90 at transplant, graft failure, need for dialysis, need for mechanical ventilation and occurrence of hepatic veno-occlusive disease. Conclusions. Within the first 100-days, the costs of MUD and UCB HCT are similar, while MRD HCT is less costly. These costs are primarily driven by severe post-transplant complications and graft failure. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010;54:138-143. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据