The cost-effectiveness of reducing donor exposures with single-donor versus pooled random-donor platelets.

BACKGROUND Single-donor platelets (SDPs) are frequently preferred over pooled random-donor platelets (RDPs) to reduce donor exposures and the risk for virus transmission or HLA alloimmunization. Transfusion-associated virus-transmission risks have significantly decreased, which suggests that white cell reduction by filtration eliminates any difference in the risk of alloimmunization in transfused leukemic patients. Health care reform pressures of make it appropriate to examine the cost-effectiveness of SDPs versus RDPs in reducing donor exposures. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A decision analysis model was developed and sensitivity analyses were used to assess the incremental cost (dollars/quality-adjusted life-year) associated with the use of SDPs versus RDPs for adult patients undergoing hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation or primary coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). RESULTS Among transplant patients, the incremental cost of choosing SDPs as opposed to RDPs ranged from $168,700 to $519,822 per quality-adjusted life-year. For patients undergoing primary CABG, the incremental cost was $192,415 (females) and $216,280 (males). Variations in the cost differential between SDPs and RDPs, the number of random-donor platelets in the RDP, and the risk of bacterial sepsis markedly influenced cost-effectiveness. The model was minimally affected by variations in the risks of transmission of HIV and hepatitis B and C, and human T-lymphotropic viruses. CONCLUSION In comparison with other accepted medical interventions, the use of SDPs as opposed to RDPs may not be a cost-effective method of reducing donor exposures in the adult patient populations studied. SDPs were more cost-effective in patients undergoing primary CABG than in leukemia patients undergoing hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation. Regardless of diagnosis, decreasing the acquisition cost differential would have the greatest impact on improving the cost-effectiveness of SDPs, as opposed to RDPs, to decrease donor exposures.