Justin W Li1, Mark E Brecher2,3, Jessica L Jacobson4, Sarah K Harm5, Dorothy Chen1, Audrey El-Gamil1, Al Dobson1, Paul D Mintz6. 1. Dobson DaVanzo & Associates, LLC, Vienna, Virginia. 2. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Burlington, North Carolina. 3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 5. University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont. 6. Verax Biomedical, Incorporated, Marlborough, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterially contaminated platelets (PLTs) remain a serious risk. The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance recommending hospitals implement secondary testing or transfuse PLTs that have been treated with pathogen reduction technology (PRT). The cost implications of these approaches are not well understood. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We modeled incurred costs when hospitals acquire, process, and transfuse PLTs that are PRT treated with INTERCEPT (Cerus Corp.) or secondary tested with the PLT PGD Test (Verax Biomedical). RESULTS: Hospitals will spend $221.27 (30.0%) more per PRT-treated apheresis PLT unit administered compared to a Zika-tested apheresis PLT unit that is irradiated and PGD tested in hospital. This difference is reflected in PRT PLT units having: 1) a higher hospital purchase price ($100.00 additional charge compared to an untreated PLT); 2) lower therapeutic effectiveness than untreated PLTs among hematologic-oncologic patients, which contributes to additional transfusions ($96.05); or 3) fewer PLT storage days, which contributes to higher outdating cost from expired PLTs ($67.87). Only a small portion of the incremental costs for PRT-treated PLTs are offset by costs that may be avoided, including primary bacterial culture, secondary bacterial testing ($26.65), hospital irradiation ($8.50), Zika testing ($4.47), and other costs ($3.03). CONCLUSION: The significantly higher cost of PRT-treated PLTs over PGD-tested PLTs should interest stakeholders. For hospitals that outdate PLTs, savings associated with expiration extension to 7 days by adding PGD testing will likely be substantially greater than the cost of implementing PGD-testing. Our findings might usefully inform a hospital's decision to select a particular blood safety approach.
BACKGROUND: Bacterially contaminated platelets (PLTs) remain a serious risk. The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance recommending hospitals implement secondary testing or transfuse PLTs that have been treated with pathogen reduction technology (PRT). The cost implications of these approaches are not well understood. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We modeled incurred costs when hospitals acquire, process, and transfuse PLTs that are PRT treated with INTERCEPT (Cerus Corp.) or secondary tested with the PLT PGD Test (Verax Biomedical). RESULTS: Hospitals will spend $221.27 (30.0%) more per PRT-treated apheresis PLT unit administered compared to a Zika-tested apheresis PLT unit that is irradiated and PGD tested in hospital. This difference is reflected in PRT PLT units having: 1) a higher hospital purchase price ($100.00 additional charge compared to an untreated PLT); 2) lower therapeutic effectiveness than untreated PLTs among hematologic-oncologic patients, which contributes to additional transfusions ($96.05); or 3) fewer PLT storage days, which contributes to higher outdating cost from expired PLTs ($67.87). Only a small portion of the incremental costs for PRT-treated PLTs are offset by costs that may be avoided, including primary bacterial culture, secondary bacterial testing ($26.65), hospital irradiation ($8.50), Zika testing ($4.47), and other costs ($3.03). CONCLUSION: The significantly higher cost of PRT-treated PLTs over PGD-tested PLTs should interest stakeholders. For hospitals that outdate PLTs, savings associated with expiration extension to 7 days by adding PGD testing will likely be substantially greater than the cost of implementing PGD-testing. Our findings might usefully inform a hospital's decision to select a particular blood safety approach.
Authors: Seema Kacker; Evan M Bloch; Paul M Ness; Eric A Gehrie; Christi E Marshall; Parvez M Lokhandwala; Aaron A R Tobian Journal: Transfusion Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Katherine M Prioli; Julie Katz Karp; Nina M Lyons; Vera Chrebtow; Jay H Herman; Laura T Pizzi Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Michelle Maclean; Monique P Gelderman; Sandhya Kulkarni; Rachael M Tomb; Caitlin F Stewart; John G Anderson; Scott J MacGregor; Chintamani D Atreya Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-01-15
Authors: Katarzyna I Jankowska; Rana Nagarkatti; Nirmallya Acharyya; Neetu Dahiya; Caitlin F Stewart; Ruairidh W Macpherson; Mark P Wilson; John G Anderson; Scott J MacGregor; Michelle Maclean; Neil Dey; Alain Debrabant; Chintamani D Atreya Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-11-24