Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:42:53.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus And Hepatitis C Virus Among Blood Transfusion Recipients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Simone Mathoulin-Pelissier ,
Louis-Rachid Salmi ,
Pierre Fialon  and
Roger Salamon
Simone Mathoulin-Pelissier*
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Health, Epidemiology, and Development, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
Louis-Rachid Salmi
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Health, Epidemiology, and Development, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
Pierre Fialon
Affiliation:
Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
Roger Salamon
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Health, Epidemiology, and Development, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
*
Institut Bergonié, 229 Cours de l'Argonne, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To choose the most cost-effective option for detecting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) among blood transfusion recipients.

Design:

Cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness was expressed as the number of HIV-1 or HCV infections detected, regardless of whether they were related to transfusion. To estimate costs, we assumed hospital insurance would cover costs related to detection and compensation, when granted.

Setting:

A 2,890-bed acute care teaching hospital in Bordeaux, France.

Methods:

Eight options were defined, from the simplest, which would be to do nothing, to a maximal approach, which would be to keep a serum sample in a serum library for a lookback and perform tests for antibody to HIV-1 and to HCV before and 3 months after transfusion. Data on probabilities and costs were taken from the literature and experiences of French hospitals.

Results:

The most cost-effective option was to perform viral antibody testing before transfusions (option 3), which would detect 27 infections per 1,000 patients, for an expenditure of US $1,260 per detected patient Option 6, obtaining a serum sample before transfusion and performing tests for antibody to HIV-1 and to HCV 3 months after transfusion, had a similar cost-effectiveness ratio but detected only 16 infections per 1,000 patients. Performing tests before and 3 months after transfusion (option 4), compared with option 3, would detect 1 additional infection for an additional cost of US $8,322.

Conclusion:

The most cost-effective options are not specific to blood transfusion recipients and might be more suited to all hospitalized patients.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , February 2003 , pp. 132 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Aubuchon, JP, Birkmeyer, JD, Busch, ME. Cost-effectiveness of expanded human immunodeficiency virus-testing protocols for donated blood. Transfusion 1997;37:45–51.Google Scholar
2.Aubuchon, JP, Birkmeyer, JD, Busch, MP. Safety of the blood supply in the United States: opportunities and controversies. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:904–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Aubuchon, JP, Kruskall, MS. Transfusion safety: realigning effort with risks. Transfusion 1997;37:1211–1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Pereira, A. Health and economic consequences of HCV lookback. Transfusion 2001;41:832–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Morel, P, Hervé, P. Surveillance of blood transfusion safety: contribution of the hemovigilance strategy in France. Transfus Med Rev 1998;12:109–127.Google Scholar
6.Direction Générale de la Santé. Circulaire DGS/DH n°96«09 du 1er octobre 1996 relative aux analyses et tests pratiqués sur des receveurs de produits sanguins labiles. Bulletin Officiel de la République Française 1996;123–128.Google Scholar
7.Mushlin, AI, Ruchlin, HS, Callahan, MA. Cost-effectiveness of diagnostics test. Lancet 2001;358:1353–1355.Google Scholar
8.Aubuchon, JP. The role of decision analysis in transfusion medicine. Vox Sang 1996;71:1–5.Google Scholar
9.Drummond, ME. Allocating resources. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990;6:77–92.Google Scholar
10.Whyte, G. Risk management in blood transfusion services. Vox Sang 1998;74:105–109.Google Scholar
11.Detsky, AS, Naglie, G, Khran, M, Redelmeier, DA, Naimark, D. Primer on medical decision analysis: II. Building a tree. Med Decis Making 1997;17:126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Khran, M, Naglie, G, Naimark, D, Redelmeier, DA, Detsky, AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: IV. Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making 1997;17:142–151.Google Scholar
13.Naglie, G, Khran, M, Naimark, D, Redelmeier, DA. Detsky, AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: III. Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997;17:136–141.Google Scholar
14.Siegel, JE, Weinstein, MC, Russel, LB, Gold, MR, for the panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health Medicine. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1996;276:1339–1341.Google Scholar
15.Vicariot, M, Marion, V, Murati, M. Suivi de 2100 malades transfusés au CHU de Brest. Gazette de la Transfusion 1994;104:5–9.Google Scholar
16.Vamvakas, EC, Taswell, HE. Mortality after blood transfusion. Transfus Med Rev 1994;8:267–280.Google Scholar
17.Mathoulin-Pélissier, S, Vicariot, M, Gross, S, et al. Étude pilote des caractéristiques des patients transfusés et des produits sanguins labiles utilisés. Transfus Clin Biol 1997;4:533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Mathoulin-Pélissier, S, Vicariot, M, Courtois, F, et al. Faisabilité d'un suivi de patients transfusés. Transfus Clin Biol 1998;5:266–274.Google Scholar
19.Laperche, S, pour le groupe de travail des Hépatites virales et Retrovirus. Réflexions concernant le dépistage des acides nucléiques des virus des hépatites B et C et du virus de l'immunodéficience humaine dans la qualification biologique des dons. Transfus Clin Biol 1998;5:139–146.Google Scholar
20.Agence française du sang. La rénovation du service public transfusionnel: les assurances en transfusion. In: Rapport sur l'activité de transfusion sanguine (juillet 1995-juillet 1996). Paris: La documentation française; 1997:100–103.Google Scholar
21.Morrison, AS. Screening. In: Rothman, KJ, Greenland, S, eds. Modern Epidemiology, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:499–518.Google Scholar
22.Salmi, LR, Mathoulin, S, Perez, P, Lawson-Ayayi, S. Dépistage et détection précoce en transfusion sanguine: quand sont-ils indiqués? Transfus Clin Biol 1997;4:417–427.Google Scholar
23.Regan, FA, Hewitt, P, Barbara, JA, Contreras, M. Prospective investigation of transfusion transmitted infection in recipients of over 20,000 units of blood. BMJ 2000;320:403–406.Google Scholar