BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of universal leucoreduction of blood components remains unclear. When using leucoreduced red blood cells, the decrease in the rate of febrile non-haemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTR) is the only proven, meaningful clinical benefit, whose relationship to costs can be calculated relatively easily. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of leucoreduction in avoiding FNHTR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from two large tertiary hospitals in Athens, Greece, over a 4-year period (2009-2012). The incidence of FNHTR in patients transfused with leucoreduced or non-leucodepleted red blood cells, the additional cost of leucoreduction and the cost to treat the FNHTR were estimated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the ratio of the change in costs to the incremental benefits of leucoreduction, was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 86,032 red blood cell units were transfused. Of these, 53,409 were leucodepleted and 32,623 were non-leucoreduced. Among patients transfused with leucodepleted units, 25 cases (0.047%) met the criteria for having a FNHTR, while in patients treated with non-leucoreduced components, 134 FNHTR were observed (0.411%). The ICER of leucoreduction was € 6,916 (i.e., the cost to prevent one case of FNHTR). CONCLUSIONS: Leucoreduction does not have a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio in relation to the occurrence of FNHTR. However, many factors, which could not be easily and accurately assessed, influence the long-term costs of transfusion. It is imperative to undertake a series of large, meticulously designed clinical studies across the entire spectrum of blood transfusion settings, to investigate most of the parameters involved.
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of universal leucoreduction of blood components remains unclear. When using leucoreduced red blood cells, the decrease in the rate of febrile non-haemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTR) is the only proven, meaningful clinical benefit, whose relationship to costs can be calculated relatively easily. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of leucoreduction in avoiding FNHTR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from two large tertiary hospitals in Athens, Greece, over a 4-year period (2009-2012). The incidence of FNHTR in patients transfused with leucoreduced or non-leucodepleted red blood cells, the additional cost of leucoreduction and the cost to treat the FNHTR were estimated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the ratio of the change in costs to the incremental benefits of leucoreduction, was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 86,032 red blood cell units were transfused. Of these, 53,409 were leucodepleted and 32,623 were non-leucoreduced. Among patients transfused with leucodepleted units, 25 cases (0.047%) met the criteria for having a FNHTR, while in patients treated with non-leucoreduced components, 134 FNHTR were observed (0.411%). The ICER of leucoreduction was € 6,916 (i.e., the cost to prevent one case of FNHTR). CONCLUSIONS: Leucoreduction does not have a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio in relation to the occurrence of FNHTR. However, many factors, which could not be easily and accurately assessed, influence the long-term costs of transfusion. It is imperative to undertake a series of large, meticulously designed clinical studies across the entire spectrum of blood transfusion settings, to investigate most of the parameters involved.
Authors: R L Thurer; N L Luban; J P AuBuchon; H Silver; L J McCarthy; S Dzik; C P Stowell; S B Moore; E C Vamvakas; W Armstrong; M H Kanter; E Jeter; J Becker; M Higgins; S Galel; S Kleinman; C S Marshall; R Newman; J A Ocaríz; D Blackall; L D Petz; P Toy; H Oberman; D L Siegel; T H Price; S J Slichter Journal: Transfusion Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: S Dzik; J Aubuchon; L Jeffries; S Kleinman; C Manno; M F Murphy; M A Popovsky; M Sayers; L E Silberstein; S J Slichter; E C Vamvakas Journal: Transfus Med Rev Date: 2000-01
Authors: Panos Kanavos; John Yfantopoulos; Christina Vandoros; Costantina Politis Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: L M van de Watering; J Hermans; J G Houbiers; P J van den Broek; H Bouter; F Boer; M S Harvey; H A Huysmans; A Brand Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-02-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R A Bowden; S J Slichter; M Sayers; D Weisdorf; M Cays; G Schoch; M Banaji; R Haake; K Welk; L Fisher; J McCullough; W Miller Journal: Blood Date: 1995-11-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Daniel Simancas-Racines; Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez; Gerard Urrutia; Diana Buitrago-Garcia; Solange Núñez-González; María José Martínez-Zapata; Eva Madrid; Xavier Bonfill; Ricardo Hidalgo-Ottolenghi Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 1.866
Authors: Salwa I Hindawi; Maha A Badawi; Edwin T Raj; Kholoud A Gholam; Seraj O Al-Weail; Fatima Azher Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.484