Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Screening the Blood Supply for Zika Virus in the 50 U.S. States and Puerto Rico: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: In 2016, universal individual donation nucleic acid testing (ID-NAT) of donated blood for Zika virus began in U.S. states and territories.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of universal ID-NAT in the first year of screening compared with alternatives for the 50 states and separately for Puerto Rico.

Design: Microsimulation that captured Zika-related harms to transfusion recipients, sexual partners, and their infants.

Data Sources: National testing results compiled by AABB and costs, utilities, and outcome probabilities estimated from the literature.

Target Population: Transfusion recipients.

Time Horizon: Lifetime.

Perspective: Societal.

Intervention: Universal ID-NAT, universal mini-pool NAT (MP-NAT), and ID-NAT exclusively for components transfused to women of childbearing age. Seasonally targeted strategies in Puerto Rico and geographically targeted strategies in the 50 states were also considered.

Outcome Measures: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and outcomes.

Results of Base-Case Analysis: In Puerto Rico, MP-NAT exclusively during high mosquito season was cost-effective at $81 123 per QALY (95% CI, -$49 138 to $978 242 per QALY). No screening policy was cost-effective in the 50 states. Universal ID-NAT cost $341 million per QALY (CI, $125 million to $2.90 billion per QALY) compared with no screening in the 50 states.

Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In Puerto Rico, MP-NAT only during the season of high mosquito activity was most cost-effective in 64% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis iterations. In the 50 states, no intervention was cost-effective in 99.99% of iterations. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the rate of assumed infectious donations.

Limitation: Data were limited on the component-specific transmissibility of Zika and long-term sequelae of infection.

Conclusion: Screening was cost-effective only in the high mosquito season in Puerto Rico, and no evaluated screening policy was cost-effective in the 50 states. During periods with lower rates of Zika-infectious donations, the cost-effectiveness of screening will be even less favorable.

Primary Funding Source: None.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app