This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.

"This study investigates the cost-effectiveness position of Octaplas against standard FFP, and its budgetary impact to the health care system. Specifically, the study answers the following research questions: 1) What is the cost-effectiveness of Octaplas versus standard frozen plasma (FP)/FFP regarding safety across the following indications: liver disease and transplantation, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), cardiovascular surgery, and coagulation disorders? 2) What is the budget impact if Octaplas: (i) replaced all FFP in Canada (excluding Quebec), or (ii) replaced FFP cryosupernatant plasma (CSP) for treatment of TTP in Canada?" (executive summary)

Octaplas produces less safety benefits at higher cost than standard FP/FFP. Cost-ineffectiveness of Octaplas results from low transfusion-related risks for FP/FFP, engineered by advances in the safety measures of blood transfusion, such as testing, donor screening, and deferral. Also, due to the average age (65 years) of plasma recipients and poor short-term prognosis of recipients, projected benefits of Octaplas are reduced.

From the net-benefit point of view, switching to Octaplas provides absolute benefits to the health care system, as it increases the volume of muchneeded IVIg and albumin. However, overall, in relative terms, the health care system incurs a net loss, as it could purchase the added volume of IVIg and albumin at lower total cost from its current suppliers.

http://www.inahta.org/Publications/Briefs-Checklist-Impact/2008/3788/