Proceedings of the Food and Drug Administration public workshop on pathogen reduction technologies for blood safety 2018 (Commentary, p. 3026)

Atreya, Chintamani; Glynn, Simone; Busch, Michael; Kleinman, Steve; Snyder, Edward; Rutter, Sara; AuBuchon, James; Flegel, Willy; Reeve, David; Devine, Dana; Cohn, Claudia; Custer, Brian; Goodrich, Raymond; Benjamin, Richard J.; Razatos, Anna; Cancelas, Jose; Wagner, Stephen; Maclean, Michelle; Gelderman, Monique; Cap, Andrew; Ness, Paul

Speaker's summary: Pathogen reduction technologies must be evaluated with two different health economic 112 BIA is a type of cost accounting study focused on implementation or maintenance of a health care intervention over a relatively short period of time, typically 1 to 5 years. CEA is an assessment of the ratio of costs to benefits, comparing at least two different interventions. 113 Results are often reported as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The CE plane can be used to graphically display the results for CEA separately for costs and effects in a way that provides several insights into the relative efficiency of each of the interventions included in the analysis and thus is highly informative to the broader decision making process for PRT. 114 The health economics of PRT in the United States continues to be one of the barriers to broader adoption. For PRT there are several technologies, each with different mechanisms of action and inactivation capacity, which have been reviewed in detail in several previous publications. 26, 27, 58, [115] [116] [117] [118] These differences are important for the health economics of each technology. Although RBC inactivation and WB inactivation technologies are in development [119] [120] [121] [122] and clinical studies are under way, 121,123 current health economic evidence has not been published for these methods. Only two PRTs, S/D-treated plasma, and amotosalen plus UV light for PLTs and plasma are approved for use in the United States.