Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Bacterially contaminated platelets (PLTs) remain a serious risk. The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance recommending hospitals implement secondary testing or transfuse PLTs that have been treated with pathogen reduction technology (PRT). The cost implications of these approaches are not well understood. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We modeled incurred costs when hospitals acquire, process, and transfuse PLTs that are PRT treated with INTERCEPT (Cerus Corp.) or secondary tested with the PLT PGD Test (Verax Biomedical). RESULTS: Hospitals will spend $221.27 (30.0%) more per PRT-treated apheresis PLT unit administered compared to a Zika-tested apheresis PLT unit that is irradiated and PGD tested in hospital. This difference is reflected in PRT PLT units having: 1) a higher hospital purchase price ($100.00 additional charge compared to an untreated PLT); 2) lower therapeutic effectiveness than untreated PLTs among hematologic-oncologic patients, which contributes to additional transfusions ($96.05); or 3) fewer PLT storage days, which contributes to higher outdating cost from expired PLTs ($67.87). Only a small portion of the incremental costs for PRT-treated PLTs are offset by costs that may be avoided, including primary bacterial culture, secondary bacterial testing ($26.65), hospital irradiation ($8.50), Zika testing ($4.47), and other costs ($3.03). CONCLUSION: The significantly higher cost of PRT-treated PLTs over PGD-tested PLTs should interest stakeholders. For hospitals that outdate PLTs, savings associated with expiration extension to 7 days by adding PGD testing will likely be substantially greater than the cost of implementing PGD-testing. Our findings might usefully inform a hospital's decision to select a particular blood safety approach.

Transfusion-transmitted cytomegalovirus (TT-CMV) is often asymptomatic, but certain patient populations, such as very low birth weight neonates, fetuses requiring intrauterine transfusion, pregnant women, patients with primary immunodeficiencies, transplant recipients, and patients receiving chemotherapy or transplantation for malignant disease, may be at risk of life-threatening CMV infection. It is unclear whether leukoreduction of cellular blood components is sufficient to reduce TT-CMV or whether CMV serological testing adds additional benefit to leukoreduction. The AABB CMV Prevention Work Group commissioned a systematic review to address these issues and subsequently develop clinical practice guidelines. However, the data were of poor quality, and no studies of significant size have been performed for over a decade. Rather than creating guidelines of questionable utility, the Work Group (with approval of the AABB Board of Directors) voted to prepare this Committee Report. There is wide variation in practices of using leukoreduced components alone or combining CMV-serology and leukoreduction to prevent TT-CMV for at-risk patients. Other approaches may also be feasible to prevent TT-CMV, including plasma nucleic acid testing, pathogen inactivation, and patient blood management programs to reduce the frequency of inappropriate transfusions. It is unlikely that future large-scale clinical trials will be performed to determine whether leukoreduction, CMV-serology, or a combination of both is superior. Consequently, alternative strategies including pragmatic randomized controlled trials, registries, and collaborations for electronic data merging, nontraditional approaches to inform evidence, or development of a systematic approach to inform expert opinion may help to address the issue of CMV-safe blood components.