Cost implications of implementation of pathogen-inactivated platelets

BACKGROUND Pathogen inactivation (PI) is a new approach to blood safety that may introduce additional costs. This study identifies costs that could be eliminated, thereby mitigating the financial impact. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Cost information was obtained from five institutions on tests and procedures (e.g., irradiation) currently performed, that could be eliminated. The impact of increased platelet (PLT) availability due to fewer testing losses, earlier entry into inventory, and fewer outdates with a 7-day shelf life were also estimated. Additional estimates include costs associated with managing 1) special requests and 2) test results, 3) quality control and proficiency testing, 4) equipment acquisition and maintenance, 5) replacement of units lost to positive tests, 6) seasonal or geographic testing, and 7) health department interactions. RESULTS All costs are mean values per apheresis PLT unit in USD ($/unit). The estimated test costs that could be eliminated are$71.76/unit and a decrease in transfusion reactions corresponds to $2.70/unit. Avoiding new tests (e.g., Babesia and dengue) amounts to$41.80/unit. Elimination of irradiation saves $8.50/unit, while decreased outdating with 7-day storage can be amortized to$16.89/unit. Total potential costs saved with PI is $141.65/unit. Costs are influenced by a variety of factors specific to institutions such as testing practices and the location in which such costs are incurred and careful analysis should be performed. Additional benefits, not quantified, include retention of some currently deferred donors and scheduling flexibility due to 7-day storage. CONCLUSIONS While PI implementation will result in additional costs, there are also potential offsetting cost reductions, especially after 7-day storage licensing

A case study of 10 patients administered HBOC‐201 in high doses over a prolonged period: outcomes during severe anemia when transfusion is not an option

Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers (HBOCs) can act as an "oxygen bridge" in acute severe anemia when transfusion is indicated, but not possible. We present data on 10 Expanded Access (EA) patients treated with high cumulative doses of Hemopure (HBOC-201), to assess the ability of HBOC-201 to safely treat life threatening anemia in situations where high volumes of product were administered over an extended period of time. Inclusion in this study required that the patient receive at least 10 units of HBOC-201 between 2014 and 2017 under the FDA-sanctioned EA program. Depending on a patient's geographical location, treatment with HBOC-201 was obtained through either a single patient emergency Investigational New Drug (IND) application, or an intermediate size population IND. Of the 41 patients who were treated during this period, 10 patients received 10 or more units of the product. Data were obtained from medical records. Treatments with HBOC-201 started within 24 hours of signing consent and were administered at an average rate of 1.99 (SD 0.17) units per day over a mean of 8.2 days (SD 2.9), during which patients received on average 16.2 units (SD 5.7 units) of HBOC-201. The median pre-treatment nadir corpuscular hemoglobin (Hb) concentration was 3.3 (SD 0.9) g/dL and post-treatment Hemoglobin was 7.3 (SD 1.7) g/dL. Common side effects included methemoglobinemia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and hypertension. However, no product-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were noted. All patients survived. Administration of HBOC-201 over an extended period is a feasible and safe oxygen bridge for severely anemic patients who cannot be transfused with RBC

Demographics of first‐time donors returning for donation during the pandemic: COVID‐19 convalescent plasma versus standard blood product donors

BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated low first-time donor return rates (DRR) following catastrophic events. Little is known, however, about the influence of demographic factors on the DRR of first-time donors during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the unique motivation of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors as compared to non-CCP donors.Study design and methodsThirteen blood collection organizations submitted deidentified data from first-time CCP and non-CCP donors returning for regular (non-CCP) donations during the pandemic. DRR was calculated as frequencies. Demographic factors associated with returning donors: race/ethnicity, gender, and generation (Gen Z: 19-24, Millennial: 25-40, Gen X: 41-56, and Boomer: ≥57 years old), within the CCP and non-CCP first-time cohorts were compared using chi-square test at p < .05 statistical significance.ResultsFrom March 2020 through December 2021, there were a total of 44,274 first-time CCP and 980,201 first-time non-CCP donors. DRR were 14.6% (range 11.9%-43.3%) and 46.6% (range 10.0%-76.9%) for CCP and non-CCP cohorts, respectively. Age over 40 years (Gen X and Boomers), female gender, and White race were each associated with higher return in both donor cohorts (p < .001). For the non-CCP return donor cohort, the Millennial and Boomers were comparable.ConclusionThe findings demonstrate differences in returning donor trends between the two donor cohorts. The motivation of a first-time CCP donor may be different than that of a non-CCP donor. Further study to improve first-time donor engagement would be worthwhile to expand the donor base with a focus on blood donor diversity emphasizing engagement of underrepresented minorities and younger donors