Riding up and down on the ULR seesaw
Countries in which ULR is mandated as public policy
September 2003 Anne Paxton
SARS.
West Nile virus. Chagas’ disease. Variant CJD. Bacterial
contamination. Hospital error. Pick up the latest newsletters from
the American Red Cross and America’s Blood Centers, and these
are the issues drawing the most attention and concern. Universal
leukoreduction is no longer among the top six.
Nevertheless,
ULR remains a $300 million-plus controversy in blood services—one
on which expert opinion is divided.
Few would have
predicted that outcome four years ago. At that time, most leukoreduction
was selective—that is, physicians ordered leukoreduced blood
only for patients at high risk for clinical problems that develop
because of the presence of leukocytes. But in 1998 the FDA’s
Blood Products Advisory Committee agreed that all cellular blood
components should be leukoreduced. In Canada and most of Europe,
ULR became official policy.
The FDA, it
appeared, was poised to make it mandatory, and the majority of U.S.
blood centers opted to adopt ULR on their own, even though leukocyte
reduction would add at least $30 to the cost of each unit of red
cells.
When the FDA
took no position, doubts grew about whether that cost was justified,
and there was a gradual drop-off in blood centers that provided
ULR.
It was a major
policy reversal when, in July of this year, the American Red Cross
announced it would return to offering both leukoreduced and nonleukoreduced
red cells to hospitals.
The Red Cross
was among the first to climb aboard the ULR bandwagon, and nearly
all of its blood centers had converted. But the organization said
a reversal was justified by the lack of an FDA mandate, lack of
definitive clinical evidence, and requests from hospitals to allow
ordering physicians to decide which patients require leukoreduced
blood products.
Today, only
about 70 to 75 percent of U.S. blood services leukoreduce all of
their blood components (down from a high of about 90 percent). James
P. AuBuchon, MD, vice chair of the CAP’s Transfusion Medicine
Resource Committee and professor of pathology and medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock
Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, thinks ULR’s heyday is over.
“The importance of leukoreduction for specific patient groups
has remained unchanged. However, the tide of universal application
of this technology is definitely on the ebb,” he says.
The decision
to convert one way or the other is too expensive to be made easily.
“We’re in a period where blood suppliers have made large
dollar commitments to moving into the arena of ULR,” says
Arthur W. Bracey, MD, an advisor to the CAP Transfusion Medicine
Resource Committee and director of the transfusion service at St.
Luke’s Episcopal Hospital and the Texas Heart Institute, Houston.
“Once you make the jump it’s very hard because there
are a lot of costs associated with it. But now some of the science
is beginning to evolve, and people are asking, Is this really necessary?”
Many see the
Red Cross’ reversion to selective leukoreduction as economically
driven. Neil Blumberg, MD, professor of pathology and laboratory
medicine and director of the transfusion medicine section/ blood
bank at University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, says, “The
Red Cross provides some of the most expensive blood in the U.S.,
for all sorts of reasons, and people are threatening to go to other
blood suppliers because of the expense.”
But others contend
that the Red Cross’ embrace of ULR wasn’t that well
founded in the first place. America’s Blood Centers, whose
members provide roughly half of the nation’s blood supply,
never went as far as the Red Cross on ULR. “From the beginning,
we’ve been pro-community choice because some of our members
adamantly believed it was right for the community” and others
did not, says Jim MacPherson, ABC chief executive officer.
“We had
to take a position consistent with what our members believe,”
he adds. “That remains our position today, and I think we’ve
been vindicated. The reason why the FDA never mandated ULR was there
was never a consensus in the medical community about whether it
should be standard or not, and the data are still controversial.”
In the
United States, expert opinion is split over whether ULR
is appropriate, says Laurence A. Sherman, MD, JD, emeritus professor
of pathology at Northwestern University, Chicago, member of the
CAP Council on Scientific Affairs, and former co-chair of the CAP’s
Transfusion Medicine Resource Committee.“Some benefits have
been advanced, some denied, and the quantitative benefit has varied
even in the same institution,” he says.
But north of
the border, where blood services have more than four years’
experience with universal leukoreduction, the take on ULR is different.
“We follow very closely what happens in the U.S.,” says
Graham D. Sher, MD, PhD, chief executive officer of Canadian Blood
Services. “And if one looks at the literature and listens
to the meetings, the prevailing sense is the evidence in favor is
certainly not getting any stronger, and there’s possibly some
evidence that some patient groups may not benefit.”
“However,
we’ve just sponsored two very large studies in Canada on the
benefits of nonleukoreduced versus leukoreduced blood, and although
they are marginal, there are benefits for both pediatric and adult
patients,” Dr. Sher adds.
Reported in
the April 16 Journal of the American Medical Association
(2003;289:1941–1949), the larger of the studies compared the
health of 6,982 Canadian adults who received blood transfusions
before the Canadian law requiring ULR with the health of 7,804 people
who received transfusions afterward.
Lead investigator
Paul C. Hébert, MD, MHSc, and his colleagues discovered that
patients in the second group were less likely to die while in the
hospital and less likely to develop a fever or require antibiotics,
although the incidence of postoperative infections was the same.
Those findings
did not surprise Edward L. Snyder, MD, professor and associate chair
for clinical affairs with the Department of Laboratory Medicine
at Yale University. At Yale-New Haven Hospital, the benefits of
converting to ULR (which the entire state of Connecticut did in
2000), have been substantial.
Dr. Snyder maintains
that the well-known difference in febrile reaction incidence has
been downplayed too much. When the FDA backed down on mandating
ULR, opponents of leukocyte reduction believed even more fervently
that ULR wasn’t necessary, he says. “It was very cavalier
of these opponents to assume the acceptability of febrile reactions
with severe chills for someone else,” he says.
His hospital’s
primary intent in converting from selective to universal leukoreduction
was to decrease the incidence of febrile reactions and prevent as
much as possible the occurrence of transfusion-related HLA, alloimmunization,
and CMV transmission, he explains.
Since January
2000, when the conversion was complete, “we have seen a drop
in HLA [human leukocyte antigen] antibody, we have not seen transmission
of CMV by blood transfusion, and our incidence of febrile reactions
to red cells and platelets dropped 45 percent and 95 percent respectively,
compared to when we were only using 25 percent bedside leukoreduction,”
he says. That means “we’ve gone to only half a dozen
cases a year of febrile reactions to platelets, whereas we used
to see six to 12 a month.”
Dr. Snyder,
who notes he is a consultant to Pall Corp., a manufacturer of leukocyte
filters, stresses that no one was recruited for the Yale study,
which has been submitted for publication. “This was an evaluation
of febrile transfusion reactions in patients reported to the blood
bank by hospital staff, so there was minimal potential for bias,”
he says. He adds that comparable results have been found in other
studies.
While the significance
of the Canadian study has been questioned by experts like Dr. AuBuchon,
who co-wrote (with Howard L. Corwin, MD) an editorial appearing
in the same issue of JAMA (2003; 289: 1993–1995),
Dr. Snyder believes it is compelling evidence of ULR’s value:
“Every time something comes out, it’s criticized as
not being the quintessential paper. I’m not trying to claim
ULR will reduce cancer, but I feel everyone should have the opportunity
not to have a febrile reaction. We’re talking about patients
with reactions that are not life-threatening—but they’re
distressing.”
Dr. Blumberg
says ULR has virtually no negative clinical side effects and believes
the issue is fairly straightforward.
Infection, he
stresses, is the most common costly and potentially lethal complication
of surgery, which accounts for 50 percent of the blood used in the
United States. “Whether LR of transfusions for surgical patients
reduces postoperative infections, morbidity, and mortality is debated,
but the data are quite clear,” he says. “Eight randomized
trials have looked at it, and in six there is clear-cut evidence
of a 50 percent reduction in postoperative infections. That means
one out of every 10 patients who would have developed an infection
with nonleukoreduced blood had that infection prevented.”
A before-and-after
study such as Canada’s is not as powerful as a randomized
trial, Dr. Blumberg admits. “But they found fairly strong
evidence of reduced complications in newborns, fewer antibiotics,
fever, and mortality. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but one
percent means you only need to treat 100 patients to get savings
and to actually prevent one in-hospital death. We wish we had antibiotics
that were that good.”
“At the
height of the HIV epidemic in San Francisco,” he continues,
“one in 100 patients may have become infected with HIV before
we had testing available. Here we’re talking about one in
100 who may get their life saved today. So if they’re correct,
then ULR is the single most important advance in transfusion medicine
since infectious disease testing.”
The meta-analyses
of randomized trials cited by URL opponents have reached misleading
conclusions, Dr. Blumberg believes, because they are methodologically
unsound and scientifically invalid. “We’re in the process
of performing a reanalysis of the literature that I think will convince
many people they’ve been led down the wrong path.” The
original studies are clear, he says, but they’ve been subjected
to secondary analyses. “These analyses include nonexistent
data from patients who received no transfusions whatever,”
thus minimizing the likelihood of seeing benefits in the patients
who were actually transfused with leukoreduced blood, he says.
Critics
of the Canadian study, on the other hand, maintain that
since it was retrospective, many of the improvements detected could
be ascribed to factors unrelated to ULR. Dr. AuBuchon believes that
a study at Massachusetts General Hospital, published last year in
Transfusion (Dzik WH, Anderson JK, O’Neill EM, et
al. 2002; 42: 1114– 1122), is the best designed and most significant
study conducted so far.
“This
is the first and to my knowledge only study to look at universal
application of leukoreduction in a large general hospital, where
it was applied to all patients who did not have a specific indication.
And it clearly showed that ULR did not offer the benefits that had
been proposed in other smaller studies,” he says.
Some papers
reporting on studies conducted outside the United States have shown
benefits, but their findings could not be replicated in this country,
Dr. AuBuchon adds. “I wish I were smart enough to figure out
why, but clearly one cannot take studies from one locale and apply
them elsewhere.”
Although the
Canadian study was well designed and thorough, Dr. Bracey warns
that the problems in retrospective studies should not be discounted.
“It’s important to remember that the care of these patients
is not a static target. Hospitals are continually trying to intervene
and reduce the number of negative outcomes, with measures ranging
from the dressing on the wound to cleaning the patient’s mouth,”
he says.
“So if
you look at one time versus another, there are an incredible number
of confounders, and you need a randomized, prospective study to
overcome them.”
Working in a
cardiovascular environment, Dr. Bracey is particularly suspicious
of claims that large absolute reductions in mortality could be credited
to blood policy. “Blood might play an important role, but
that’s really making it the centerpiece,” he says. A
randomized trial at his institution, which he presented at last
year’s American Association of Blood Banks meeting, found
no difference in mortality, length of stay, or incidence of infection
for routine versus leukoreduced transfusions.
Blood service
directors can be accused of a kind of doublespeak, he admits. “On
one side, you say you will do everything you can, even in the absence
of hard data, to make blood as safe as possible without any constraints
in overall cost-containment or efficiency. On the other hand, you
have to ask, If the data are not that convincing, should we really
be committing resources knowing we have a limited ability to spend
on health care? Years ago an expert government economist said the
American public will demand we do everything we can, but I think
that theory needs to be tested by the American public,” Dr.
Bracey says.
“We’re
still sort of shell-shocked from the aftermath of HIV, and I personally
would never like to see such negative outcomes from transfusion,
but are we overreacting? That’s the critical question.”
The CAP has
been involved in an advocacy program to put the decision about leukoreduction
back in the realm of the medical practitioner, Dr. Bracey says.
“There’s been communication between the College and
the FDA and other elements of government in that regard, so I think
that’s an important effort.”
From each blood
center’s standpoint, there is a tipping point in decisionmaking
about ULR because of the logistics of inventory management. “If
you have hospitals committed to 100 percent ULR,” MacPherson
says, “and their use of blood is going to vary from week to
week, how much do you have to have to make sure they’re all
covered, while at the same time having enough unleukoreduced blood
to meet the needs of other customers?”
“If only
15 percent want nonleukoreduced blood, you can probably meet most
of their needs. But they say once you cross the threshold of 30
or 40 percent LR blood, then it becomes a nightmare,” he says.
“You never really know. You’re always going to wind
up sending something nobody wants, and it’s difficult to manage
something with such a short shelf life as blood.”
From an inventory
management standpoint, a universal approach is much easier, agrees
Dr. Sher of Canadian Blood Services. “Your products are all
standardized, you avoid the physician saying ‘I want product
A’ when product B is the only one available, and no patients
are likely being harmed,” he says.
Dr. Bracey is
sympathetic to the logistics of maintaining separate inventories,
but he notes that competition from non-ULR sources drove the Red
Cross back to a mixed inventory in place of systems offering exclusively
leukoreduced blood. “In North Carolina,” he says, “hospitals
formed a consortium to collect their own blood, and what they’re
offering is not 100 percent leukoreduced, so the Red Cross needed
to make this move in order to compete in that market.”
As an example
of another complication, he adds, at St. Luke’s “we’re
using standard blood as our primary blood product, but we have select
categories of patients where we’ve increased the amount of
leukoreduced blood we use because our secondary supplier is 100
percent leukoreduced. If we were following the guidelines, we’d
probably use 20 percent LR blood, but we’re currently using
35 percent to 40 percent. That’s because of the oversupply
of our secondary supplier.”
ULR
was adopted in Canada because of the many benefits it was
thought to offer transfusion recipients, but it was adopted in Europe,
primarily in the United Kingdom, not because of its reduction of
febrile reactions, according to Dr. Snyder. “It was because
of concerns over leukocytes’ role in the spread of vCJD [variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease],” he says. “Hearkening back
to the HIV epidemic, some French government officials had actually
been put in jail under very old statutes in French law for failing
to act in the public interest.”
“Nobody
wanted to be in power in a country when ‘AIDS II’ hit
and they had done nothing to protect the people, but it seemed that
experimental animals were less likely to get the disease if these
white cells were missing. Now we know vCJD is apparently not readily
spread through white cells. So ULR didn’t pan out, but they’ve
kept it anyway because of a reluctance to go back.”
The situation
in the United States is different. “The Canadian medical and
political climates have been tumultuous ones over the last decade,”
says Dr. AuBuchon, “and there are many forces that appear
to be involved in the decisionmaking process that are not extant
in this country or do not have the same power.”
The cost of
ULR to Canada was considerable—a $35 million to $40 million
addition to the national blood system budget in 1999. U.S. hospitals
are much more sensitive to price increases, Dr. Sher notes. “Of
course, the blood system in Canada is very different in funding
and governance in that hospitals and patients do not pay. We get
funding at a global level from provincial and territorial compartments,
and we provide it at no cost to the hospital.”
“We haven’t
seen the same sort of ‘pushback’ around costing here,”
agrees Dana Devine, PhD, executive director of research and development
for Canadian Blood Services in Vancouver, British Columbia, and
a coauthor of the Hébert study.
“In my
view, the real truth is at the moment we don’t know whether
it’s been worth the cost,” she adds. Other medical interventions
may be compared using a dollar-to-life scale, she says, “but
that scale doesn’t seem to apply to the blood systems of the
world. We make financial expenditures in blood systems that we probably
wouldn’t make elsewhere.”
Dr. Snyder says
conversion to ULR at Yale-New Haven Hospital cost about $400,000,
and they were able to cost-shift some savings in CMV testing. “I
can’t say we had substantial cost savings by not having to
work up febrile reactions, but there were some savings. Also, there
were savings from the quantity discount on blood products from the
American Red Cross.”
“The added
cost is somewhere in the $30 to $40 range for a unit of red cells,”
he adds, “and you have to decide if a decrease of 94 percent
in febrile reactions is worth spending that kind of money.”
Would the payback
from other blood safety measures be much higher, as has been suggested?
Dr. Snyder is not convinced: “Some people say it would be
far better to develop a system of labeling blood at the bedside
to make sure you have the right blood product to the right patient,
but I don’t think you should put all your resources into bar-code
systems,” which can be defeated or worked around.
While some have
suggested, too, that ULR may be replaced by pathogen reduction,
Dr. Snyder says, “the question is whether pathogen reduction
is going to obviate the need for leukoreduction. I don’t think
it will be because febrile reactions can still occur.”
Blood centers
in this country have already spent at least $300 million converting
voluntarily to ULR. Could the added cost of using leukoreduced blood
continue to drop if more blood services embrace it? MacPherson is
doubtful. As more filters are made and sold and competition among
manufacturers has increased, the price has stabilized, but he suggests
that achieving much more cost-efficiency might not be possible.
“When you get down around the $10 to $12 level for the actual
cost of the filter, plus labor, you’re not going to go a whole
lot lower.”
But doubling
the number of red cell inventories to eight can lead to less obvious
cost increases, Dr. Blumberg says. Although the Red Cross will now
make nonleukoreduced blood available in response to demands for
cheaper blood, “that means many patients who should get it
won’t because they’ve run out of one of the eight inventories,
and people will be under the misguided apprehension that it won’t
cause suffering of patients and will save money because the blood
bank budget will be less. But the hospital will spend more.”
What makes cost-effectiveness
determinations difficult, Dr. Blumberg notes, is that the costs
of ULR show up in the blood bank expenses. “The benefits may
be $2 or $3 or $4 million, but they will be in shortened length
of stay, cost of antibiotics, ventilator time, or ICU time—not
to mention that the patients get to go home for Christmas instead
of to the mortuary. It’s in the clinical milieu that the savings
occur.”
It’s difficult
to convince hospital management. “I’ve shown our hospital
administrators that when we implemented ULR, the savings significantly
outstripped the costs,” he says. But at most institutions,
“everybody has an ax hanging over their head. The bean-counter
mentality that prevails among most administrators will make them
tell the blood bank, ‘Get your budget back to where you were.’”
Medicare payment
policy adds other complications. “Blood has not been in the
Medicare/Medicaid market basket updates for the last five or six
years,” MacPherson points out. “It was taken out in
the 1990s when the cost of blood was relatively stable; it was below
the CPI for health care.”
“But then
because of nucleic acid testing, leukoreduction, other tests, and
now the potential promise of pathogen reduction, we’ve been
seeing huge increases in the last few years,” he says. ABC,
the Red Cross, and AABB have pushed hard to get Congress to include
blood in the market basket, and their efforts have paid off.
“In recent
Medicare budget bills, Congress has added money to catch up with
the price increases in blood, and in the next fiscal year blood
will be in the market basket update, and they will be tracking the
cost of blood,” MacPherson says.
But this move
has to be put in perspective, he cautions. “Blood is only,
at the most, four percent of the patient’s hospital bill.
It’s really small potatoes, and if you increase the reimbursement
by 10 or 30 percent, you’re still talking about very little
amounts of money. The real question is, Is there sufficient reimbursement?,
period.”
On this question
as well as on ULR, MacPherson believes prospects for more studies
are slim. “It’s very, very difficult because they have
to be very long term, you need a large number of patients, and there
are other higher priorities in this country. When you’re talking
about real deaths and real threats, those take No. 1 priority.”
The political
environment has shifted, Dr. Blumberg concedes. “Patients
are not as worried about getting AIDS, so ULR looks like a political
nonstarter.” But he urges, “It’s time to start
arguing about the data in a way that’s constructive, because
it’s extremely clear.”
Until
there is a national consensus, Dr. Sherman would prefer
a pragmatic approach. “We continue to scramble for an adequate
blood supply,” he points out. “We do not have systematic,
broad, ongoing data on blood availability, nor do we more than partially
understand donor motivation and recruitment. This is an area where
commitment of more resources is needed.”
He notes that
leukoreduction was thought only a few decades ago to improve kidney
graft survival, and the opposite turned out to be true. “We
believe ongoing re-evaluation of any therapeutic modality is wise,”
he says.
The greatest
risks to transfusion recipients have been well documented, Dr. AuBuchon
notes. “For recipients of red cells, the risk comes from mislabeling
of samples at the time of collection of the specimen and transfusion
of the unit to the wrong patient. For platelet recipients, it comes
from bacterial contamination. And I’m pleased both the CAP
and the AABB are now directing laboratories’ attention to
these issues. The other major risk faced by any recipient of a plasma-containing
component is transfusion-related acute lung injury, or TRALI, and
as yet we do not have a good means of reducing this risk.”
All health care
systems choose which interventions to fund, whether the choices
are deliberate or not, Dr. Sherman stresses. “When I’ve
gone to Canada and read complaints in the newspapers about the unavailability
of ER and other services, I’d say Canadians have made a choice
between certain kinds of services. When people here tell me they
are being patient advocates, what they usually mean is they’re
being advocates for transfused patients or diabetic patients”—possibly
to the detriment of other types of patients, he says.
But the real
question is, What other service would lose out if ULR became official
policy? “Medicare is not going to increase the total budget
if we went to ULR,” Dr. Sherman says.
“Ideally,
if you went to the hospital with, say, a mild pneumonia, and you
had no underlying cardiac or pulmonary problems, you’d want
to be in an intensive-care unit just on the off-chance that a one-in-10,000
complication could occur that would not have been apparent on your
admission. You could also say if a previously unsuspected anemia
were present, you’d want to have all your blood leukoreduced,
or that
you only want blood from a blood drive you had at a convent.”
“That’s
what everybody would want if you could have your druthers,”
Dr. Sherman says. “But you can’t say that’s the
best way to spend medical dollars. You have to decide at what point
health care dollars would be better spent on other things that will
benefit more people as a whole.”
Anne
Paxton is a writer in Seattle.
|