Though operational practices vary centre by centre, the routine use of INTERCEPT™ pathogen inactivation technology for platelets in Europe has demonstrated significant operational gains that translate into cost savings. These are some of the ways that costs are reduced:
- Replacing several current procedures: estimated savings of €20 to €30 per platelet unit.1,2
- Prolonged platelet storage: 10% improvement on wastage, saving €25 to €60 per unit on an average platelet unit price of €250 to €600.3,4
- Optimised platelet production ratio in terms of collection methods.5,6,7,8
- Double dose apheresis platelet collections decrease costs per pathogen inactivation kit by 50%.10
- Plasma derived from an apheresis collection can be treated using a single INTERCEPT processing set to result in three transfusion doses ready for use.
- Economical treatment of plasma derived from whole blood collections thanks to the Cerus OptiPool™ methodology.
- Reduction of acute transfusion reactions.9
- Insurance against unknown pathogens.11,12,13,14
In addition to product-related savings, the INTERCEPT deployment team has been helping blood centres to successfully implement the INTERCEPT Blood System for over 10 years, offering its expertise in blood banking operations to optimise workflow and product quality and maximise efficiency throughout the production process.
1.Sigle JP, et al., Comparison of transfusion efficacy of amotosalen-based pathogen-reduced platelet components and gamma-irradiated platelet components, Transfusion 2013;53:1788-1797
2McCullough J, et al. Cost implications of implementation of pathogen-inactivated platelets, Transfusion 2015, doi:10.1111/trf.13149
4.Veihola M, et al., Variation of platelet production and discard rates in 17 blood centers representing 10 European countries from 2000 to 2002, Transfusion (2006) 46, 991-995
5.Etablissement Français du Sang Cost Analysis, presented by JP Cazenave at the Consensus Conference, ‘Pathogen Inactivation: Making Decisions About New Technologies’, March 29, 2007 (Toronto, Canada)
6.Andreu G, et al., Use of random versus apheresis platelet concentrates, Transfusion Clinique et Biologique (2007) 14, 514-521
7.Vamvakas EC, Relative safety of pooled whole blood-derived versus single-donor (apheresis) platelets in the United States: a systematic review of disparate risks, Transfusion (2009), Commentary volume 49
8.Lozano ML, et al., Platelet concentrates from whole-blood donations (buffy-coat) or apheresis: which one to use?, Medicina Clínica (Barc.) (2012) 138, 528-533
9.Berger K, et al., Model calculations to quantify clinical and economic effects of pathogen inactivation in platelet concentrates, Onkologie (2013)36, 53-59
11.Girona-Llobera, et al., Reducing the financial impact of pathogen inactivation technology for platelet components: our experience, Transfusion (2014) 54, 158-168
12.French National Agency for Medicine and Health Product Safety (ANSM), Haemovigilance Activity Report, 2012
13.SwissMedic Haemovigilance Annual Reports, 2010-2012
14. Rüesch, et al. Swissmedic Report. Two years' experience with pathogen inactivation for all platelet concentrates in Switzerland