Search

BackgroundThe INTERVAL trial showed shorter inter-donation intervals could safely increase the frequency of whole-blood donation. We extended the INTERVAL trial to consider the relative cost-effectiveness of reduced inter-donation intervals.MethodsOur within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) used data from 44,863 whole-blood donors randomly assigned to 12, 10 or 8 week (males), and 16, 14 or 12 week inter-donation intervals (females). The CEA analysed the number of whole-blood donations, deferrals including low- haemoglobin deferrals, and donors' health-related quality of life (QoL) to report costs and cost-effectiveness over two years.FindingsThe mean number of blood donation visits over two years was higher for the reduced interval strategies, for males (7.76, 6.60 and 5.68 average donations in the 8-, 10- and 12- week arms) and for females (5.10, 4.60 and 4.01 donations in the 12-, 14- and 16- week arms). For males, the average rate of deferral for low haemoglobin per session attended, was 5.71% (8- week arm), 3.73% (10- week), and 2.55% (12- week), and for females the rates were: 7.92% (12-week), 6.63% (14- week), and 5.05% (16- week). Donors' QoL was similar across strategies, although self-reported symptoms were increased with shorter donation intervals. The shorter interval strategies increased average cost, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £9.51 (95% CI 9.33 to 9.69) per additional whole-blood donation for the 8- versus 12- week interval for males, and £10.17 (95% CI 9.80 to 10.54) for the 12- versus 16- week interval arm for females.ConclusionsOver two years, reducing the minimum donation interval could provide additional units of whole-blood at a small additional cost, including for those donor subgroups whose blood type is in relatively high demand. However, the significance of self-reported symptoms needs to be investigated further before these policies are expanded.

BACKGROUND:There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of alternative brands of prosthesis for total knee replacement (TKR). We compared patient-reported outcomes, revision rates, and costs, and estimated the relative cost-effectiveness of five frequently used cemented brands of unconstrained prostheses with fixed bearings (PFC Sigma, AGC Biomet, Nexgen, Genesis 2, and Triathlon). METHODS:We used data from three national databases for patients who had a TKR between 2003 and 2012, to estimate the effect of prosthesis brand on post-operative quality of life (QOL) (EQ-5D-3L) in 53 126 patients at six months. We compared TKR revision rates by brand over 10 years for 239 945 patients. We used a fully probabilistic Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and the probability that each prosthesis brand is the most cost effective at alternative thresholds of willingness-to-pay for a QALY gain. FINDINGS:Revision rates were lowest with the Nexgen and PFC Sigma (2.5% after 10 years in 70-year-old women). Average lifetime costs were lowest with the AGC Biomet (£9 538); mean post-operative QOL was highest with the Nexgen, which was the most cost-effective brand across all patient subgroups. For example, for 70-year-old men and women, the ICERs for the Nexgen compared to the AGC Biomet were £2 300 per QALY. At realistic cost per QALY thresholds (£10 000 to £30 000), the probabilities that the Nexgen is the most cost-effective brand are about 98%. These results were robust to alternative modelling assumptions. CONCLUSIONS:AGC Biomet prostheses are the least costly cemented unconstrained fixed brand for TKR but Nexgen prostheses lead to improved patient outcomes, at low additional cost. These results suggest that Nexgen should be considered as a first choice prosthesis for patients with osteoarthritis who require a TKR.

The number of prosthesis brands used for hip replacement has increased rapidly, but there is little evidence on their effectiveness. We compared patient-reported outcomes, revision rates, and mortality for the three most frequently used brands within each prosthesis type: cemented (Exeter V40 Contemporary, Exeter V40 Duration and Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee), cementless (Corail Pinnacle, Accolade Trident, and Taperloc Exceed), and hybrid (Exeter V40 Trilogy, Exeter V40 Trilogy, and CPT Trilogy).We used three national databases of patients who had hip replacements between 2008 and 2011 in the English NHS to compare functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score (OHS) ranging from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) in 43,524 patients at six months. We analysed revisions and mortality in 187,201 patients. We used multiple regression to adjust for pre-operative differences. Prosthesis type had an impact on post-operative OHS and revision rates (both p