Search

Objectives: Thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics are a potential alternative to platelet transfusion to minimize blood loss in patients with thrombocytopenia. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TPO mimetics, compared with not using TPO mimetics, in adult patients with thrombocytopenia. Methods: Eight databases and registries were searched for full economic evaluations (EEs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were synthesized as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) or as cost per health outcome (e.g. bleeding event avoided). Included studies were critically appraised using the Philips reporting checklist. Results: Eighteen evaluations from nine different countries were included, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of TPO mimetics compared with no TPO, watch-and-rescue therapy, the standard of care, rituximab, splenectomy or platelet transfusion. ICERs varied from a dominant strategy (i.e. cost-saving and more effective), to an incremental cost per QALY/health outcome of EUR 25,000–50,000, EUR 75,000–750,000 and EUR > 1 million, to a dominated strategy (cost-increasing and less effective). Few evaluations (n = 2, 10%) addressed the four principal types of uncertainty (methodological, structural, heterogeneity and parameter). Parameter uncertainty was most frequently reported (80%), followed by heterogeneity (45%), structural uncertainty (43%) and methodological uncertainty (28%). Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness of TPO mimetics in adult patients with thrombocytopenia ranged from a dominant strategy to a significant incremental cost per QALY/health outcome or a strategy that is clinically inferior and has increased costs. Future validation and tackling the uncertainty of these models with country-specific cost data and up-to-date efficacy and safety data are needed to increase the generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: For anaemic elective surgery patients, current clinical practice guidelines weakly recommend the routine use of iron, but not erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs), except for short-acting ESAs in major orthopaedic surgery. This recommendation is, however, not based on any cost-effectiveness studies. The aim of this research was to (1) systematically review the literature regarding cost effectiveness of preoperative iron and/or ESAs in anaemic, elective surgery patients and (2) update existing economic evaluations (EEs) with recent data. Methods: Eight databases and registries were searched for EEs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting cost-effectiveness data on November 11, 2020. Data were extracted, narratively synthesized and critically appraised using the Philips reporting checklist. Pre-existing full EEs were updated with effectiveness data from a recent systematic review and current cost data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as cost per (quality-adjusted) life-year [(QA)LY] gained. Results: Only five studies (4 EEs and 1 RCT) were included, one on intravenous iron and four on ESAs + oral iron. The EE on intravenous iron only had an in-hospital time horizon. Therefore, cost effectiveness of preoperative iron remains uncertain. The three EEs on ESAs had a lifetime time horizon, but reported cost per (QA)LY gained of 20–65 million (GBP or CAD). Updating these analyses with current data confirmed ESAs to have a cost per (QA)LY gained of 3.5–120 million (GBP or CAD). Conclusions: Cost effectiveness of preoperative iron is unproven, whereas routine preoperative ESA therapy cannot be considered cost effective in elective surgery, based on the limited available data. Future guidelines should reflect these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives The cost-utility of safety interventions is becoming increasingly important as a driver of implementation decisions. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-utility of different blood screening strategies in various settings, and to analyse the extent and cause of differences in health economic results. Materials and Methods For eight Western countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, The Netherlands, UK and the United States of America), data were collected on donor and recipient populations, blood products, screening tests, and on patient treatment practices and costs. An existing ISBT web-tool model was used to assess the cost-utility of various strategies for HIV, HCV and HBV screening. Results The cost-utility ratio of serology screening for these eight countries ranges between −11 000 and 92 000 US$ per QALY, and for NAT between −12 000 and 113 000 US$ per QALY when compared to no screening. Combined serology and NAT ranges between 600 and 217 000 US$ per QALY. The incremental cost-utility of NAT after implementation of serology screening ranges from 2 231 000 to 15 778 000 US$ per QALY. Conclusion There are substantial differences in costs per QALY between countries for various HIV, HBV and HCV screening strategies. These differences are primarily caused by costs of screening tests and infection rates in the donor population. Within each country, similar cost per QALY results for serology and NAT compared to no screening, coupled with evidence of limited value of serology and NAT together prompts the need for further discussion on the acceptability of parallel testing by serology and NAT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]