Literature DB >> 21880046

Cost-effectiveness of additional blood screening tests in the Netherlands.

Barbara A Borkent-Raven1, Mart P Janssen, Cees L van der Poel, Gouke J Bonsel, Ben A van Hout.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During the past decade, blood screening tests such as triplex nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) and human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I or I (HTLV-I/II) antibody testing were added to existing serologic testing for hepatitis B virus (HBV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In some low-prevalence regions these additional tests yielded disputable benefits that can be valuated by cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). CEAs are used to support decision making on implementation of medical technology. We present CEAs of selected additional screening tests that are not uniformly implemented in the EU. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was analyzed of: 1) HBV, HCV, and HIV triplex NAT in addition to serologic testing; 2) HTLV-I/II antibody test for all donors, for first-time donors only, and for pediatric recipients only; and 3) hepatitis A virus (HAV) for all donations. Disease progression of the studied viral infections was described in five Markov models.
RESULTS: In the Netherlands, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of triplex NAT is €5.20 million per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for testing minipools of six donation samples and €4.65 million/QALY for individual donation testing. The ICER for anti-HTLV-I/II is €45.2 million/QALY if testing all donations, €2.23 million/QALY if testing new donors only, and €27.0 million/QALY if testing blood products for pediatric patients only. The ICER of HAV NAT is €18.6 million/QALY.
CONCLUSION: The resulting ICERs are very high, especially when compared to other health care interventions. Nevertheless, these screening tests are implemented in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Policy makers should reflect more explicit on the acceptability of costs and effects whenever additional blood screening tests are implemented.
© 2011 American Association of Blood Banks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21880046     DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03319.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transfusion        ISSN: 0041-1132            Impact factor:   3.157


  8 in total

1.  Blood safety policy: should cautionary policies be adopted with caution?

Authors:  Luciana Riva; Carlo Petrini
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 3.443

2.  Blood donor selection in European Union directives: room for improvement.

Authors:  Wim De Kort; Wolfgang Mayr; Christof Jungbauer; Tomislav Vuk; Riin Kullaste; Erhard Seifried; Giuliano Grazzini; Jeroen De Wit; Gilles Folléa
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 3.443

3.  Prevention of Transfusion-Transmitted Infections: Dilemmas.

Authors:  Hans L Zaaijer
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2017-12-12

Review 4.  Blood and Blood Components: From Similarities to Differences.

Authors:  Olivier Garraud; Jean-Daniel Tissot
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-04-09

5.  Effectiveness of blood donor screening by HIV, HCV, HBV-NAT assays, as well as HBsAg and anti-HBc immunoassays in Germany (2008-2015).

Authors:  Sarah A Fiedler; Doris Oberle; Michael Chudy; Heinrich Scheiblauer; Olaf Henseler; Jochen Halbauer; Margarethe Heiden; Markus Funk
Journal:  Vox Sang       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 2.144

6.  When are infection risks of blood transfusion tolerable? Towards understanding the ethical views of stakeholders in the blood supply.

Authors:  Koen Kramer; Marcel F Verweij; Hans L Zaaijer
Journal:  Vox Sang       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 2.144

7.  Health state utility values in people living with HTLV-1 and in patients with HAM/TSP: The impact of a neglected disease on the quality of life.

Authors:  Carolina Rosadas; Tatiane Assone; Marina Yamashita; Adine Adonis; Marzia Puccioni-Sohler; Marisa Santos; Arthur Paiva; Jorge Casseb; Augusto C P Oliveira; Graham P Taylor
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2020-10-16

Review 8.  Assessing the value of screening tools: reviewing the challenges and opportunities of cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Nicolas Iragorri; Eldon Spackman
Journal:  Public Health Rev       Date:  2018-07-13
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.