Cost-Effectiveness of Defibrotide in the Prophylaxis of Veno-Occlusive Disease after Pediatric Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

- Veno-occlusive disease is a serious complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children
- Veno-occlusive disease prophylaxis according to BCSH/BSBMT guidelines was investigated for cost-effectiveness
- Prophylactic defibrotide in pediatric allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is not cost-effective regarding treatment-related mortality or length of hospital stay

Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) remains a serious complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Prophylactic use of defibrotide (DF) might further reduce VOD rates but has no impact on the incidence of severe VOD or VOD-associated mortality. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic DF according to the British Committee for Standards in Haematology/British Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation guidelines in 348 children who underwent transplantation between 2001 and 2014 in our hospital, 138 of whom were at risk for VOD. The VOD incidence was 7.4% for the total cohort. Patients at risk had a higher incidence of VOD compared with patients without risk factors (15.2% versus 2.4%, P < .0001). VOD occurred more often in patients after busulfan-based myeloablative conditioning than in patients after total body irradiation (11.2% versus 3.5%, P = .001). Donor types or the transplantation-related mortality (TRM) risk score did not correlate with VOD incidence. In 81% of patients who responded to therapeutic DF, VOD resolved completely. Overall VOD-associated mortality was .3% for the complete cohort, 3.7% for patients diagnosed with VOD, and 20% for patients with severe VOD. Neither the cumulative incidence of TRM (19% ± 8% versus 17% ± 2%, P = .706) nor the median length of hospitalization differed between patients with VOD and patients without. The median costs per HSCT in patients with VOD were about one-third higher than the overall median costs per transplantation at our institution. The calculated total costs of prophylactic DF treatment for 138 patients at risk was almost 6 times as high as the incremental costs for patients with VOD. We conclude that prophylactic DF for children at risk for VOD is not cost-effective with respect to TRM and length of hospital stay.