Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands

Netherlands

Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands

Netherlands
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Custer B.,University of California at San Francisco | Janssen M.P.,Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands | Hubben G.,BaseCase | Vermeulen M.,South African National Blood Service Johannesburg South Africa | van Hulst M.,University of Groningen
Vox Sanguinis | Year: 2017

Background and Objectives: Most countries test donations for HIV, HCV and HBV using serology with or without nucleic acid testing (NAT). Cost-utility analyses provide information on the relative value of different screening options. The aim of this project was to develop an open access risk assessment and cost-utility analysis web-tool for assessing HIV, HCV and HBV screening options (http://www.isbtweb.org/working-parties/transfusion-transmitted-infectious-diseases/). An analysis for six countries (Brazil, Ghana, the Netherlands, South Africa, Thailand and USA) was conducted. Materials and Methods: Four strategies; (1) antibody assays (Abs) for HIV and HCV + HBsAg, (2) antibody assays that include antigens for HIV and HCV (Combo) + HBsAg, (3) NAT in minipools of variable size (MP NAT) and (4) individual donation (ID) NAT can be evaluated using the tool. Country-specific data on donors, donation testing results, recipient outcomes and costs are entered using the online interface. Results obtained include the number infections interdicted using each screening options, and the (incremental and average) cost-utility of the options. Results: In each of the six countries evaluated, the use of antibody assays is cost effective or even cost saving. NAT has varying cost-utility depending on the setting, and where adopted, the incremental cost-utility exceeds any previously defined or proposed threshold in each country. Conclusion: The web-tool allows an assessment of infectious units interdicted and value for money of different testing strategies. Regardless of gross national income (GNI) per capita, countries appear willing to dedicate healthcare resources to blood supply safety in excess of that for other sectors of health care. © 2017 International Society of Blood Transfusion.


Janssen M.P.,Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands | van Hulst M.,University of Groningen | Custer B.,University of California at San Francisco
Vox Sanguinis | Year: 2017

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. © 2017 International Society of Blood Transfusion.

Loading Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands collaborators
Loading Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands collaborators