Resource utilization for chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy versus autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with B cell lymphoma

CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) have emerged as a highly efficacious treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B cell lymphoma (BCL). The value of CAR-T for these patients is indisputable, but one-off production costs are high, and little is known about the ancillary resource consumption associated with CAR-T treatment. Here, we compared the resource use and costs of CAR-T treatment with high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for patients with r/r BCL. Standard operating procedures were used to develop a process model in ClipMed^PPM, which comprises all activities and processes to sustain or generate treatment components that together constitute a treatment path. The software allows a graphic representation and the use of standardized linguistic elements for comparison of different treatment paths. Detailed processes involved in CAR-T treatments (n = 1041 processes) and in ASCT (n = 1535) were analyzed for time consumption of treatment phases and personnel. Process costs were calculated using financial controlling data. CAR-T treatment required ~ 30% less staff time than ASCT (primarily nursing staff) due to fewer chemotherapy cycles, less outpatient visits, and shorter hospital stays. For CAR-T, production costs were ~ 8 × higher, but overall treatment time was shorter compared with ASCT (30 vs 48 days), and direct labor and overhead costs were 40% and 10% lower, respectively. Excluding high product costs, CAR-T uses fewer hospital resources than ASCT for r/r BCL. Fewer hospital days for CAR-T compared to ASCT treatment and the conservation of hospital resources are beneficial to patients and the healthcare system.

[Sense and content of care pathways in orthopaedic and trauma surgery]

The aim of the study was to find the best possible methodology to evaluate the perioperative processes in the main diagnosis-related groups in an orthopaedic and trauma centre. A model in five phases was followed to develop the care pathways. Optimization potentials were derived from estimated problems and their origin. Cases of missing objectives led to re-organization and the necessary quality in treatment could be prepared as a new work flow management. The cost-effectiveness of treatment procedures and the costs of processes conditionally led to a change in management. The advantages of the study were increased knowledge of the processes involved in diagnosis and therapy with regard to the evoked costs. So the limited budget became more calculable.

Is the (Neo)adjuvant Therapy of Patients with Primary HER2-positive Breast Cancer Cost-Covering?: Process Cost Analysis of Neoadjuvant and Post-Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy of Patients with Primary HER2-positive Breast Cancer

Introduction HER2 positivity is one of the most important predictive factors in the treatment of breast cancer patients. Thanks to new targeted anti-HER2 drugs, the prognosis for HER2-positive breast cancer patients has been significantly improved, and the treatment can now be designed according to the risk situation and the response to treatment. At the same time, these innovative targeted anti-HER2 drugs are associated with high costs and require long and involved patient care. Materials and Methods In this paper, we compare the treatment costs of three post-neoadjuvant treatment regimens (trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab/pertuzumab vs. T-DM1) in early stage HER2-positive breast cancer from the perspective of the oncological outpatient clinic of a certified breast center at a university hospital, and evaluate the cost coverage. Results The highest costs in systemic therapy were the material costs. These were the highest for dual blockade with trastuzumab/pertuzumab, followed by T-DM1 and trastuzumab monotherapy. According to our study, all three of these post-neoadjuvant therapy variants achieve a positive contribution margin. While all three models have similar contribution margins, the treatment pathway with T-DM1 is associated with a 30% lower contribution margin. Conclusions Although these model calculations are associated with limitations in view of the introduction of biosimilar antibodies, it can be shown that modern therapeutic approaches do not always have to be associated with lower profits.