Comparison of the costs of different clinical treatment plans for children with acute promyelocytic leukemia / 白血病·淋巴瘤

ABSTRACT

Objective@#To explore the costs and other information of two different treatment plans for pediatric acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) one is the traditional intravenous drip arsenic (arsenic trioxide) combined with chemotherapy treatment, and the other is a medication family treatment program based on oral arsenic (Realgar-Indigo naturalis formula), in order to provide a reference for the promotion of pediatric APL family treatment mode and the formulation of medical insurance policies.@*Methods@#The medical record homepage data and drug using of pediatric APL from 2010 to 2018 in Institute of Hematology & Blood Diseases Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College were retrospectively analyzed, and the newly diagnosed pediatric patients (≤14 years old) with APL were included. The hospitalization expenses and hospitalization time of two treatment options were compared. One treatment option was Chinese children APL treatment plan 2010 (CCAPL 2010), which was based on intravenous drip arsenic trioxide. The other was Chinese Children Cancer Group APL treatment plan 2017 (CCCG-APL 2017), which was based on oral Realgar-Indigo naturalis formula.@*Results@#A total of 79 pediatric APL patients were included and grouped according to the treatment plans, 56 patients were treated with CCAPL 2010 plan, and 23 patients were treated with CCCG-APL 2017 plan. The median costs of one single pediatric APL patient in CCAPL 2010 plan was 167 700 yuan (95 800-386 600 yuan), and the median hospital stay time of one single pediatric APL patient was 102 days (14-157 days). The median costs of one single pediatric APL patient in CCCG-APL 2017 plan group was 118 700 yuan(50 800-270 600 yuan), and the median hospital stay time of one single pediatric APL patient was 37 days(5-96 days). The costs and hospital stay time of one single pediatric APL patient with CCCG-APL 2017 plan were remarkably less than those of one single pediatric APL patient with CCAPL 2010 plan (U = 178, P < 0.01; U = 66, P < 0.01).@*Conclusions@#The CCCG-APL 2017 plan simplifies the treatment plan compared with the CCAPL 2010 plan and significantly reduces the patient's medical expenses and shortens the hospitalization days. The CCCG-APL 2017 plan is suitable for family therapy and has good social and economic benefits, which is worthy of clinical promotion.