Cost comparison of extracorporeal photopheresis technologies at the European Institute of Oncology.


Journal

Journal of clinical apheresis
ISSN: 1098-1101
Titre abrégé: J Clin Apher
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8216305

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Historique:
revised: 07 09 2020
received: 11 03 2020
accepted: 18 12 2020
pubmed: 22 1 2021
medline: 15 12 2021
entrez: 21 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit at Istituto Europeo di Oncologia (IEO; Milan, Lombardia) provides extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) therapy to treat graft-vs-host disease (GvHD) using offline procedures. ECP can be administered via an integrated single device (online procedure). Total cost of performing ECP at IEO vs an integrated device was assessed using a micro-costing approach. Ten offline ECP procedures for GvHD were monitored using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing methodology, which utilized costs of resources, and time spent by patients/healthcare personnel with each resource. Details of ECP steps were recorded (pre-/post-treatment clinical evaluations, biological sampling, cannulation, apheresis, irradiation, reinfusion time). Time and cost comparisons between offline (combination of equipment/devices) and online technologies (THERAKOS™ CELLEX™ Photopheresis System) were performed. Cost variables: consumables, personnel, equipment, and laboratory tests. Personnel costs for online procedures were calculated using published time estimates and IEO hourly rates. Costs recorded in 2018 euros. Median duration of IEO offline ECP procedures (296 minutes) was greater than that reported for CELLEX ECP delivery (120 minutes). Total cost of offline ECP (€1134.57 [$1314.57]/procedure) was greater than that reported for online delivery (€1063.95 [$1232.74]/procedure). IEO performs ~84 ECP procedures/y, which would require ~412 hours/y vs 168 hours/y for online procedures; suggesting €5932.08 [$6873.72]/y savings with online procedures. This assessment highlights potential resource time savings with online procedures. Time saved could allow increased activity with the same resources, at a department level. Potential non-monetary benefits include reduced time burden on patients, increased availability of hospital staff and improved patient safety.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit at Istituto Europeo di Oncologia (IEO; Milan, Lombardia) provides extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) therapy to treat graft-vs-host disease (GvHD) using offline procedures. ECP can be administered via an integrated single device (online procedure). Total cost of performing ECP at IEO vs an integrated device was assessed using a micro-costing approach.
METHODS METHODS
Ten offline ECP procedures for GvHD were monitored using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing methodology, which utilized costs of resources, and time spent by patients/healthcare personnel with each resource. Details of ECP steps were recorded (pre-/post-treatment clinical evaluations, biological sampling, cannulation, apheresis, irradiation, reinfusion time). Time and cost comparisons between offline (combination of equipment/devices) and online technologies (THERAKOS™ CELLEX™ Photopheresis System) were performed. Cost variables: consumables, personnel, equipment, and laboratory tests. Personnel costs for online procedures were calculated using published time estimates and IEO hourly rates. Costs recorded in 2018 euros.
RESULTS RESULTS
Median duration of IEO offline ECP procedures (296 minutes) was greater than that reported for CELLEX ECP delivery (120 minutes). Total cost of offline ECP (€1134.57 [$1314.57]/procedure) was greater than that reported for online delivery (€1063.95 [$1232.74]/procedure). IEO performs ~84 ECP procedures/y, which would require ~412 hours/y vs 168 hours/y for online procedures; suggesting €5932.08 [$6873.72]/y savings with online procedures.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This assessment highlights potential resource time savings with online procedures. Time saved could allow increased activity with the same resources, at a department level. Potential non-monetary benefits include reduced time burden on patients, increased availability of hospital staff and improved patient safety.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33476456
doi: 10.1002/jca.21870
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

364-369

Subventions

Organisme : Therakos, a Mallinckrodt company

Informations de copyright

© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Références

Worel N, Leitner G. Clinical results of extracorporeal photopheresis. Transfus Med Hemother. 2012;39:254-262.
Azar N, Leblond V, Ouzegdouh M, Button P. A transition from using multi-step procedures to a fully integrated system for performing extracorporeal photopheresis: a comparison of costs and efficiencies. J Clin Apher. 2017;32:474-478.
Zic JA, Stricklin GP, Greer JP, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma treated with extracorporeal photochemotherapy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;35:935-945.
Jagasia M, Scheid C, Socié G, et al. Randomized controlled study of ECP with methoxsalen as first-line treatment of patients with moderate to severe cGVHD. Blood Adv. 2019;3:2218-2229.
Flowers ME, Apperley JF, van Besien K, et al. A multicenter prospective phase 2 randomized study of extracorporeal photopheresis for treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2008;112:2667-2674.
Greinix HT, Knobler RM, Worel N, et al. The effect of intensified extracorporeal photochemotherapy on long-term survival in patients with severe acute graft-versus-host disease. Haematologica. 2006;91:405.
Trautinger F, Eder J, Assaf C, et al. European organisation for research and treatment of Cancer consensus recommendations for the treatment of mycosis fungoides/Sezary syndrome-update 2017. Eur J Cancer. 2017;77:57-74.
Jaksch P, Scheed A, Keplinger M, et al. A prospective interventional study on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis in patients with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:950-957.
Knobler R, Berlin G, Calzavara-Pinton P, et al. Guidelines on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2014;28:1-37.
Del Fante C, Scudeller L, Oggionni T, et al. Long-term off-line extracorporeal photochemotherapy in patients with chronic lung allograft rejection not responsive to conventional treatment: a 10-year single-centre analysis. Respiration. 2015;90:118-128.
Kaplan RS, Anderson SR. Time-driven activity-based costing. Harv Bus Rev. 2004;82:131-138, 150.
Kaplan RS, Porter ME. The big idea: how to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2011;89:46-52, 54, 56-61 passim.
Keel G, Savage C, Rafiq M, Mazzocato P. Time-driven activity-based costing in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Health Policy. 2017;121:755-763.
Bobhot AN, Adorno G, Fiorelli E, Button PM. A multi-Centre cost comparison of integrated versus “off-line” systems for performing extracorporeal photopheresis procedures. European Hematology Association 20th Annual Congress, Vienna, Austria. EHA Abstracts Book; 2015.
Rushton C, Robertson L, Taylor T, Taylor P, Button P, Alfred A. Improving the service for patients receiving extracorporeal photopheresis using lean principles. Br J Nurs. 2016;25:917-921.
Yerrabothala S, Talebian L, Klinker K, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis for graft versus host disease: identifying a clinical pathway and associated resource utilization. J Clin Apher. 2018;33:310-315.
Bisaccia E, Vonderheid EC, Geskin L. Safety of a new, single, integrated, closed photopheresis system in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:167-169.
Pierelli L, Perseghin P, Marchetti M, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis for the treatment of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease in adults and children: best practice recommendations from an Italian Society of Hemapheresis and Cell Manipulation (SIdEM) and Italian Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation (GITMO) consensus process. Transfusion (Paris). 2013;53:2340-2352.

Auteurs

Antonio Magarò (A)

Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Bruno Lucchetti (B)

Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Alessandro Caime (A)

Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Maria T Lionetti (MT)

Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Daniele Laszlo (D)

Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH