Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of alternative blood-screening strategies for West Nile Virus in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

West Nile virus (WNV) is endemic in the US, varying seasonally and by geographic region. WNV can be transmitted by blood transfusion, and mandatory screening of blood for WNV was recently introduced throughout the US. Guidelines for selecting cost-effective strategies for screening blood for WNV do not exist.

Methods and findings

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for screening blood for WNV using a computer-based mathematical model, and using data from prospective studies, retrospective studies, and published literature. For three geographic areas with varying WNV-transmission intensity and length of transmission season, the model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with alternative screening strategies in a target population of blood-transfusion recipients. We compared the status quo (baseline screening using a donor questionnaire) to several strategies which differed by nucleic acid testing of either pooled or individual samples, universal versus targeted screening of donations designated for immunocompromised patients, and seasonal versus year-long screening. In low-transmission areas with short WNV seasons, screening by questionnaire alone was the most cost-effective strategy. In areas with high levels of WNV transmission, seasonal screening of individual samples and restricting screening to blood donations designated for immunocompromised recipients was the most cost-effective strategy. Seasonal screening of the entire recipient pool added minimal clinical benefit, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeding USD 1.7 million per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Year-round screening offered no additional benefit compared to seasonal screening in any of the transmission settings.

Conclusions

In areas with high levels of WNV transmission, seasonal screening of individual samples and restricting screening to blood donations designated for immunocompromised recipients is cost saving. In areas with low levels of infection, a status-quo strategy using a standard questionnaire is cost-effective.

SUBMITTER: Korves CT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1324950 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBabesia microti is the leading reported cause of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-transmitted infection in the United States. Donor screening assays are in development.Study design and methodsA decision analytic model estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for preventing transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB) in a hypothetical cohort of transfusion recipients in Babesia-endemic areas of the United States. Strategies included: 1) no screening; 2) Uniform Donor Health History Questionnaire (UDHQ), "status quo"; 3) recipient risk targeting using donor antibody and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening; 4) universal endemic donor antibody screening; and 5) universal endemic donor antibody and PCR screening. Outcome measures were TTB cases averted, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; $/QALY). We assumed a societal willingness to pay of $1 million/QALY based on screening for other transfusion-transmitted infections.ResultsCompared to no screening, the UDHQ avoids 0.02 TTB cases per 100,000 RBC transfusions at an ICER of $160,000/QALY whereas recipient risk-targeted strategy using antibody/PCR avoids 1.62 TTB cases per 100,000 RBC transfusions at an ICER of $713,000/QALY compared to the UDHQ. Universal endemic antibody screening avoids 3.39 cases at an ICER of $760,000/QALY compared to the recipient risk-targeted strategy. Universal endemic antibody/PCR screening avoids 3.60 cases and has an ICER of $8.8 million/QALY compared to universal endemic antibody screening. Results are sensitive to blood donor Babesia prevalence, TTB transmission probability, screening test costs, risk and severity of TTB complications, and impact of babesiosis diagnosis on donor quality of life.ConclusionAntibody screening for Babesia in endemic regions is appropriate from an economic perspective based on the societal willingness to pay for preventing infectious threats to blood safety.

Project description:Background and aimsCurrent guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.MethodsEight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.ResultsCompared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.ConclusionAt 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.Plain language summaryCost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.