Search

Objectives: To describe changes in costs of managing hospitalised patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) after chemotherapy in Germany over 3 yr, with a special focus on prophylaxis and treatment patterns as well as resource use related to invasive fungal infections (IFI). Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective, single-centre chart review in patients with AML hospitalised for chemotherapy, neutropenia and infections after myelosuppressive chemotherapy from January 2004 to December 2006 in Germany. The following resource utilisation data were collected: inpatient stay, mechanical ventilation, parenteral feeding, diagnostics, systemic antifungal medication and cost-intensive concomitant medication. Direct medical costs were calculated from hospital provider perspective. Results: A total of 471 episodes in 212 patients were included in the analysis. Occurrence of IFI decreased from 5.9% in 2004 to 1.9% in 2006. Mean (±standard deviation) hospital stay decreased from 28.7 ± 17.9 d in 2004 to 22.4 ± 11.8 d in 2006. From 2004 to 2006, the use of a single antifungal drug increased from 30.4% to 46.9%, whereas the use of multiple antifungal drugs decreased from 24.4% to 13.1%. The use of liposomal amphotericin B declined between 2004 and 2006 (21.4% vs. 3.8%) and caspofungin between 2005 and 2006 (19.3% vs. 8.1%). Total costs per episode declined from €19 051 ± 19 024 in 2004 to €13 531 ± 9260 in 2006; major reductions were observed in the use of antimycotics and blood products as well as length of hospital stay. Conclusion: Analysis of real-life data from one single centre in Germany demonstrated a change in antifungal management of patients with AML between 2004/2005 and 2006, accompanied by a decline in total costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess current clinical practice in diagnosis and treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), we performed a survey among German, Austrian, and Swiss allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) centers. Thirty-four of 72 contacted centers (47%) completed both the diagnostic and therapeutic sections of the survey, representing 65% of allo-HSCT activity within the participating countries in 2011. Three pediatric centers answered as requested only the diagnostic part of the survey. In the presence of diarrhea and decreased oral intake after engraftment, only 4 centers (12%) do not perform any endoscopy before the start of immunosuppressive treatment. In case of a skin rash with the differential diagnosis of drug reaction, only 12 centers (35%) perform a skin biopsy up front, whereas 19 do so after failure of systemic steroids. In the presence of rapidly increasing cholestasis occurring without any other signs of aGVHD, 11 centers (32%) perform a liver biopsy up front and 14 only after failure of steroid treatment, whereas 9 centers do not perform a liver biopsy at all. Twenty centers (59%) use a percutaneous approach, 12 a transvenous approach, and 1 mini-laparoscopy for liver biopsies. First-line treatment of cutaneous aGVHD stage 1 consists of topical treatment alone in 17 of 31 responding centers (61%), whereas isolated cutaneous aGVHD stage III is treated with systemic steroids (prednisolone below 0.5 mg/kg/day n = 2, 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg/day n = 10, above 1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day n = 19) without or with topical agents (steroids n = 10; calcineurin inhibitors n = 3). In gastrointestinal manifestations of aGVHD, 9 centers (29%) add topical to systemic steroids, and 3 consider topical steroids as the only treatment for mild gastrointestinal and cutaneous aGVHD. The choice of agent for second-line treatment as well as the sequence of administration are extremely heterogeneous, most likely due to a lack of convincing data published. Most frequently used are mycophenolate mofetil (n = 14) and extracorporeal photopheresis (n = 10). Our survey also demonstrates that clinicians chose salvage therapies for steroid-refractory aGVHD based on their centers' own clinical experience., (Copyright © 2013 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although various guidelines on antifungal prophylaxis and treatment have been published, the practical approach in the individual clinical setting might considerably differ because of special local circumstances. In addition, there are major differences between paediatric and adult patients regarding antifungal strategies and the use of antifungal compounds. We here present the antifungal approach in the Departments of Hematology and Oncology of the University Hospital of Frankfurt, where per year approximately 350 children and adults are diagnosed with cancer and an additional 100 patients undergo haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The differences in the approach between the paediatric and adult setting are highlighted.