Frey P, Stinson T, Siston A, Knight S J, Ferdman E, Traynor A, O'Gara K, Rademaker A, Bennett C, Winter J N
Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002 Dec;30(11):741-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703676.
Our goal was to compare direct and indirect medical costs and quality of life associated with inpatient vs outpatient autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AuHSCT). Twenty-one sequential outpatients and 26 inpatients were enrolled on this prospective trial. All candidates for AuHSCT were screened for eligibility for outpatient transplantation. Patients with either breast cancer or hematologic malignancy, insurance coverage for the outpatient procedure, one to three caregivers available to provide 24 h coverage, and no significant comorbidities were eligible to participate. Patients without caregivers or insurance coverage for outpatient transplant were accrued to the study in a consecutive manner as inpatient controls, based on willingness to participate in the quality of life portion of the study and to permit review of their hospital and billing records. Approximately half of all 139 prospective outpatient candidates were ineligible because they lacked a caregiver. Most commonly, the patient without a caregiver was single or widowed or their family and friends were needed to provide childcare. Most caregivers were college educated from families with incomes greater than US dollars 80000. Indirect costs to the caregivers totaled a median of US dollars 2520 (range US dollars 684-US dollars 4508), with the majority attributed to lost 'opportunity costs'. Overall, there were significant differences in the total costs of treatment for inpatient vs outpatient AuHSCT (US dollars 40985 vs US dollars 29210, P < 0.01)). In general, no significant differences were detected between inpatient and outpatient scores on quality of life measures. Although significant cost savings were associated with outpatient transplantation, this approach was applicable to only half of our otherwise eligible candidates because of a lack of caregivers. The financial burden associated with the caretaking role may underlie this finding.
我们的目标是比较住院与门诊自体造血干细胞移植(AuHSCT)相关的直接和间接医疗成本以及生活质量。21名连续的门诊患者和26名住院患者参与了这项前瞻性试验。所有AuHSCT候选者都接受了门诊移植资格筛查。患有乳腺癌或血液系统恶性肿瘤、门诊手术有保险覆盖、有一至三名护理人员可提供24小时护理且无重大合并症的患者有资格参与。没有护理人员或门诊移植保险覆盖的患者,基于愿意参与研究的生活质量部分并允许查阅其医院和账单记录,以连续方式作为住院对照纳入研究。在139名潜在门诊候选者中,约一半因缺乏护理人员而不符合资格。最常见的情况是,没有护理人员的患者是单身或丧偶,或者他们的家人和朋友需要照顾孩子。大多数护理人员受过大学教育,家庭收入超过80000美元。护理人员的间接成本中位数总计2520美元(范围为684美元至4508美元),其中大部分归因于“机会成本”损失。总体而言,住院与门诊AuHSCT的治疗总成本存在显著差异(40985美元对29210美元,P<0.01)。一般来说,住院和门诊患者在生活质量测量得分上未发现显著差异。尽管门诊移植可显著节省成本,但由于缺乏护理人员,这种方法仅适用于我们原本符合条件的候选者的一半。与护理角色相关的经济负担可能是这一发现的潜在原因。