Health Economic Aspects of Platelet Concentrates: Comparing Cost and Reimbursement of Pathogen Inactivated and Conventional Platelet Concentrates in a German Comprehensive Cancer Center

INTRODUCTION

Pathogen inactivation (PI) utilizing amotosalen and UVA light (INTERCEPT® Blood System) is a well-established method for the production of safer platelet concentrates (PCs). While many studies describe clinical and logistical benefits of PI, the implications and potential challenges from a hospital management perspective have not yet been analyzed - health economic analyses considering reimbursement of PI are lacking. The objective of this analysis was to examine the real-life inpatient treatment costs from a hospital perspective and to assess the economic impact of PI-PC versus conventional PC (CONV-PC) administration in Germany.

METHODS

Real-life cost data for inpatient cancer cases from 2020 of the University Hospital Cologne were identified by operating and procedure codes. The German diagnosis-related groups, extra fees, case mix index (CMI), length of stay (LOS), and average resource consumption of PC were evaluated from a micro-management perspective. The potential economic impact of implementing PI-treated PCs was modeled retrospectively.

RESULTS

In total, 951 inpatient cases were analyzed (CMI [median 4.7-9.9], LOS [median 26 days], number of cases in intensive care units [38%]). The median DRG fee was between EUR 13,800 and EUR 26,400. According to our model, the use of PI-PC compared to CONV-PC would result in savings between EUR 184 and EUR 306 per case.

CONCLUSION

From a hospital management perspective, oncological cases requiring PC transfusion are associated with a high CMI (reimbursement per DRG flat fee) and moderate costs with sufficient add-on payment for PI on a case level. Investment and process costs for PI implementation can be analyzed for site-specific scenarios.

Economic Analyses of Pathogen-Reduction Technologies in Blood Transfusion: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Technologies used in the processing of whole blood and blood component products, including pathogen reduction, are continuously being adopted into blood transfusion workflows to improve process efficiencies. However, the economic implications of these technologies are not well understood. With the advent of these new technologies and regulatory guidance on bacterial risk-control strategies, an updated systematic literature review on this topic was warranted.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic literature review was to summarize the current literature on the economic analyses of pathogen-reduction technologies (PRTs).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines to identify newly published articles in PubMed, MEDLINE Complete, and EconLit from 1 January 2000 to 17 July 2019 related to economic evaluations of PRTs. Only full-text studies in humans published in English were included in the review. Both budget-impact and cost-effectiveness studies were included; common outcomes included cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

The initial searches identified 433 original abstracts, of which 16 articles were included in the final data extraction and reporting. Seven articles presented cost-effectiveness analyses and nine assessed budget impact. The introduction of PRT increased overall costs, and ICER values ranged widely across cost-effectiveness studies, from below $US150,000/QALY to upwards of $US20,000,000/QALY. This wide range of results was due to a multitude of factors, including comparator selection, target patient population, and scenario analyses included.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results of economic evaluations of bacterial risk-control strategies, regardless of mechanism, were highly dependent on the current screening protocols in place. The optimization of blood transfusion safety may not result in decisions made at the willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly seen in pharmaceutical evaluations. Given the critical public health role of blood products, and the potential safety benefits introduced by advancements, it is important to continue building this body of evidence with more transparency and data source heterogeneity. This updated literature review provides global context when making local decisions for the coverage of new and emerging bacterial risk-control strategies.

A systematic literature review on the use of platelet transfusions in patients with thrombocytopenia

Objective: Investigate globally, current treatment patterns, benefit-risk assessments, humanistic, societal and economic burden of platelet transfusion (PT). Methods: Publications from 1998 to June 27, 2018 were identified, based on databases searches including MEDLINE®; Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data from studies meeting pre-specified criteria were extracted and validated by independent reviewers. Data were obtained for efficacy and safety from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); data for epidemiology, treatment patterns, effectiveness, safety, humanistic and societal burden from real-world evidence (RWE) studies; and economic data from both. Results: A total of 3425 abstracts, 194 publications (190 studies) were included. PT use varied widely, from 0%-100% of TCP patients; 1.7%-24.5% in large studies (>1000 patients). Most were used prophylactically rather than therapeutically. 5 of 43 RCTs compared prophylactic PT with no intervention, with mixed results. In RWE studies PT generally increased platelet count (PC). This increase varied by patient characteristics and hence did not always translate into a clinically significant reduction in bleeding risk. Safety concerns included infection risk, alloimmunization and refractoriness with associated cost burden. Discussion: In RCTs and RWE studies there was significant heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures. In RWE studies, patients receiving PT may have been at higher risk than those not receiving PT creating potential bias. There were limited data on humanistic and societal burden. Conclusion: Although PTs are used widely for increasing PC in TCP, it is important to understand the limitations of PTs, and to explore the use of alternative treatment options where available.

Pathogen reduction of blood components during outbreaks of infectious diseases in the European Union: an expert opinion from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control consultation meeting

Pathogen reduction (PR) of selected blood components is a technology that has been adopted in practice in various ways. Although they offer great advantages in improving the safety of the blood supply, these technologies have limitations which hinder their broader use, e.g. increased costs. In this context, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), in co-operation with the Italian National Blood Centre, organised an expert consultation meeting to discuss the potential role of pathogen reduction technologies (PRT) as a blood safety intervention during outbreaks of infectious diseases for which (in most cases) laboratory screening of blood donations is not available. The meeting brought together 26 experts and representatives of national competent authorities for blood from thirteen European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States (MS), Switzerland, the World Health Organization, the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Health Care of the Council of Europe, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the ECDC. During the meeting, the current use of PRTs in the EU/EEA MS and Switzerland was verified, with particular reference to emerging infectious diseases (see Appendix). In this article, we also present expert discussions and a common view on the potential use of PRT as a part of both preparedness and response to threats posed to blood safety by outbreaks of infectious disease.

The long and winding road to pathogen reduction of platelets, red blood cells and whole blood

Pathogen reduction technologies (PRTs) have been developed to further reduce the current very low risks of acquiring transfusion-transmitted infections and promptly respond to emerging infectious threats. An entire portfolio of PRTs suitable for all blood components is not available, but the field is steadily progressing. While PRTs for plasma have been used for many years, PRTs for platelets, red blood cells (RBC) and whole blood (WB) were developed more slowly, due to difficulties in preserving cell functions during storage. Two commercial platelet PRTs use ultra violet (UV) A and UVB light in the presence of amotosalen or riboflavin to inactivate pathogens' nucleic acids, while a third experimental PRT uses UVC light only. Two PRTs for WB and RBC have been tested in experimental clinical trials with storage limited to 21 or 35 days, due to unacceptably high RBC storage lesion beyond these time limits. This review summarizes pre-clinical investigations and selected outcomes from clinical trials using the above PRTs. Further studies are warranted to decrease cell storage lesions after PRT treatment and to test PRTs in different medical and surgical conditions. Affordability remains a major administrative obstacle to PRT use, particularly so in geographical regions with higher risks of transfusion-transmissible infections.

Budget impact of implementing platelet pathogen reduction into the Italian blood transfusion system

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in blood donor selection and screening procedures, transfusion recipients can still develop complications related to infections by known and emerging pathogens. Pathogen reduction technologies (PRT) have been developed to reduce such risks. The present study, developed whithin a wider health technology assessment (HTA) process, was undertaken to estimate the costs of the continuing increase in the use of platelet PRT in Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multidisciplinary team was established to perform the HTA and conduct a budget impact analysis. Quantitative data on platelet use were derived from the 2015 national blood transfusion report and from the Italian Platelets Transfusion Assessment Study (IPTAS). The current national fee of 60 Euro per platelet PRT procedure was used to quantify the costs to the Italian National Health Service (INHS). The analysis adopts a 3-year time-frame. In order to identify the impact on budget we compared a scenario representing an increased use of PRT platelets over time with a control scenario in which standard platelets are used.

RESULTS

Progressive implementation of PRT for 20%, 40% and 66% of annual adult platelet doses could generate an increase in annual costs for the INHS amounting to approximately 7, 14 and 23 million Euros, respectively. Use of kits and devices suitable for the treatment of multiple adult platelet doses in one PRT procedure could lower costs.

DISCUSSION

In order to fully evaluate the societal perspective of implementing platelet PRT, the increase in costs must be balanced against the expected benefits (prevention of transfusion-transmissible infections, white cell inactivation, extension of platelet storage, discontinuation of pathogen detection testing). Further studies based on actual numbers of platelet transfusion complications and their societal cost at a local level are needed to see the full cost to benefit ratio of platelet PRT implementation in Italy, and to promote equal treatment for all citizens.

Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I2 = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I2 = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I2 = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I2 = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I2 = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I2 = 15%; high-quality evidence).None of the studies reported quality of life.We did not evaluate any economic outcomes.There was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.In people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.All three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.

Blood-Borne Pathogens: A Canadian Blood Services Centre for Innovation Symposium

Testing donations for pathogens and deferring selected blood donors have reduced the risk of transmission of known pathogens by transfusion to extremely low levels in most developed countries. Protecting the blood supply from emerging infectious threats remains a serious concern in the transfusion medicine community. Transfusion services can employ indirect measures such as surveillance, hemovigilance, and donor questioning (defense), protein-, or nucleic acid based direct testing (detection), or pathogen inactivation of blood products (destruction) as strategies to mitigate the risk of transmission-transmitted infection. In the North American context, emerging threats currently include dengue, chikungunya, and hepatitis E viruses, and Babesia protozoan parasites. The 2003 SARS and 2014 Ebola outbreaks illustrate the potential of epidemics unlikely to be transmitted by blood transfusion but disruptive to blood systems. Donor-free blood products such as ex vivo generated red blood cells offer a theoretical way to avoid transmission-transmitted infection risk, although biological, engineering, and manufacturing challenges must be overcome before this approach becomes practical. Similarly, next generation sequencing of all nucleic acid in a blood sample is currently possible but impractical for generalized screening. Pathogen inactivation systems are in use in different jurisdictions around the world, and are starting to gain regulatory approval in North America. Cost concerns make it likely that pathogen inactivation will be contemplated by blood operators through the lens of health economics and risk-based decision making, rather than in zero-risk paradigms previously embraced for transfusable products. Defense of the blood supply from infectious disease risk will continue to require innovative combinations of surveillance, detection, and pathogen avoidance or inactivation.

•

A symposium on blood-borne pathogens was held September 26, 2015, in Toronto, Canada.

•

Transmission-transmitted infections remain a threat to the blood supply.

•

The residual risk from established pathogens is small; emerging agents are a concern.

•

Next generation sequencing and donor-free blood are not yet practical approaches.

•

Pathogen inactivation technology is being increasingly used around the world.

•

Health economic concerns will likely guide future advances in this area.

Cost implications of implementation of pathogen-inactivated platelets

BACKGROUND

Pathogen inactivation (PI) is a new approach to blood safety that may introduce additional costs. This study identifies costs that could be eliminated, thereby mitigating the financial impact.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Cost information was obtained from five institutions on tests and procedures (e.g., irradiation) currently performed, that could be eliminated. The impact of increased platelet (PLT) availability due to fewer testing losses, earlier entry into inventory, and fewer outdates with a 7-day shelf life were also estimated. Additional estimates include costs associated with managing 1) special requests and 2) test results, 3) quality control and proficiency testing, 4) equipment acquisition and maintenance, 5) replacement of units lost to positive tests, 6) seasonal or geographic testing, and 7) health department interactions.

RESULTS

All costs are mean values per apheresis PLT unit in USD ($/unit). The estimated test costs that could be eliminated are $71.76/unit and a decrease in transfusion reactions corresponds to $2.70/unit. Avoiding new tests (e.g., Babesia and dengue) amounts to $41.80/unit. Elimination of irradiation saves $8.50/unit, while decreased outdating with 7-day storage can be amortized to $16.89/unit. Total potential costs saved with PI is $141.65/unit. Costs are influenced by a variety of factors specific to institutions such as testing practices and the location in which such costs are incurred and careful analysis should be performed. Additional benefits, not quantified, include retention of some currently deferred donors and scheduling flexibility due to 7-day storage.

CONCLUSIONS

While PI implementation will result in additional costs, there are also potential offsetting cost reductions, especially after 7-day storage licensing.