Search

Background: Large volume delayed sampling (LVDS) and pathogen reduction technology (PRT) are strategies for platelet processing to minimize transfusion of contaminated platelet components (PCs). This study holistically compares the economic and clinical impact of LVDS and PRT in the United States., Study Design and Methods: A decision model was constructed to simulate collection, processing, and use of PCs and to compare processing strategies: PRT with 5-day shelf life, LVDS with 7-day shelf life (LVDS7), and LVDS with 5-day shelf life extended to 7 days with secondary testing (LVDS5/2). Target population was adults requiring two or more transfusions. Collection, processing, storage, and distribution data were obtained from the National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey and published literature. Patient outcomes associated with transfusions were obtained from AABB guidelines, meta-analyses, and other published clinical studies. Costs were obtained from reimbursement schedules and other published sources., Results: Given 10,000 donated units, 9512, 9511, and 9651 units of PRT, LVDS5/2, and LVDS7 PCs were available for transfusion, respectively. With these units, 1502, 2172, and 2329 transfusions can be performed with similar levels of adverse events. Assuming 30 transfusions a day, a hospital would require 69,325, 47,940, and 45,383 units of PRT, LVDS5/2, and LVDS7 platelets to perform these transfusions. The mean costs to perform transfusions were significantly higher with PRT units., Conclusions: Compared with PRT, LVDS strategies were associated with lower costs and higher PC availability while patients experienced similar levels of adverse events. Increased utilization of LVDS has the potential to improve efficiency, expand patient access to platelets, and reduce health care costs., (© 2021 AABB.)

Background and Purpose: Improved selection of patients with stroke for IV tPA treatment may enhance clinical outcomes. Given the limited availability of MR imaging in hospitals, we examined the cost-effectiveness of adding CTP to the usual CT-based methods for selecting patients on the basis of the presence and extent of penumbra., Materials and Methods: A decision-analytic model estimated the costs and outcomes associated with penumbra-based CTP selection in a patient population similar to that enrolled in the IV tPA clinical trials. Model inputs were obtained from published literature, clinical trial data, standard US costing sources, and expert opinion. Cost per life-year saved and cost per QALY gained were estimated from a hospital perspective., Results: Addition of penumbra-based CTP to standard unenhanced CT improved favorable outcome (mRS, ≤1) by 0.59% and reduced cost by $42 compared with selection based on unenhanced CT alone. Life-years and QALYs improved. Multivariate sensitivity analysis predicted cost-effectiveness (≤$50,000 per QALY) in 89.2% of simulation runs., Conclusions: Using penumbra-based CTP after routine CT to select patients with ischemic stroke for IV tPA is cost-effective compared with the usual CT-based methods for hospitals. With the ease of access of CTP, penumbra-based selection methods may be readily available to hospitals. Thus, this economic analysis may lend further support to the consideration of a paradigm shift in acute stroke evaluation.

Background: Before the introduction of the immunomodulatory therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS), treatment options for MS consisted of symptomatic management (physical therapy and pharmacological treatment for symptom management). Symptomatic management for MS has been supplemented in the past decade by 2 new classes of immunomodulatory therapies that have been approved as first-line treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS): subcutaneous glatiramer acetate (SC GA) and 3 beta-interferons: intramuscular interferon beta-1a (IM IFNbeta-1a), SC IFNbeta-1a, and SC IFNbeta-1b., Objective: To estimate the economic outcomes of 5 treatment strategies: symptom management alone, symptom management combined with SC GA, IM IFNbeta1-a, SC IFNbeta1-a, or SC IFNbeta1-b in patients diagnosed with RRMS., Methods: A literature-based Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of 5 treatment strategies for managing a hypothetical cohort of patients diagnosed with RRMS in the United States--4 immunomodulatory drug therapies and symptom management alone. Health states were based on the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), a widely accepted scale for assessing RRMS (higher EDSS scores = increased disease severity). Baseline relapse and disease progression transition probabilities for symptom management were obtained from natural history studies. Treatment effects of the immunomodulatory therapies were estimated by applying a percentage reduction to the symptom management transition probabilities for relapse (27% reduction) and disease progression (30% reduction). Transition probabilities were subsequently adjusted to account for (1) the effects of neutralizing antibodies, specifically on relapse rates by assuming no additional therapy benefits after the second year of continuous therapy, and (2) treatment discontinuation. Therapy-specific data were obtained from clinical trials and long-term follow-up observational studies. Transitions among health states occurred in 1-month cycles for the lifetime of a patient. Costs (2005 US$) and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually., Results: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year for the 4 immunomodulatory therapies is $258,465, $303,968, $416,301, and $310,691 for SC GA, IM IFNbeta-1a, SC IFNbeta-1a, and SC IFNbeta-1b, respectively, compared with symptom management alone. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were sensitive to changes in utilities, disease progression rates, time horizon, and immunomodulatory therapy cost., Conclusions: The pharmacoeconomic model determined that SC GA was the best strategy of the 4 immunomodulatory therapies used to manage MS and resulted in better outcomes than symptom management alone. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was sensitive to changes in a number of key parameters, and thus changes in these key parameters would likely influence the estimated cost-effectiveness results. Head-to-head randomized clinical trials comparing the immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of MS are necessary to validate the projections from the pharmacoeconomic analyses, particularly since the results available today from the clinical trials do not account adequately for treatment dropouts.