Optimal malarial screening strategy in Australian blood donors: A cost‐effectiveness analysis

Abstract

Background and ObjectivesThe risk of transfusion‐transmitted malaria (TTM) infections is extremely low in Australia, and the cost‐effectiveness of the current screening strategy has not been assessed. This study aims to conduct a cost‐effectiveness analysis of different malaria screening strategies in blood donors as part of the risk‐based decision‐making framework.Materials and MethodsA decision tree model was developed to assess the cost‐effectiveness of five alternative malaria screening strategies from a healthcare sector perspective. Screening strategies combining total or partial removal of malaria testing with different deferral periods were considered. The probabilities of developing severe and uncomplicated TTM were based on a literature review of cases in non‐endemic areas since 2000. The health outcomes were quantified using disability‐adjusted life years. The costs of non‐returning donors due to deferral were also included. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for data uncertainty.ResultsThe residual risks for all strategies were so low that the costs, mortality and morbidity associated with TTM are almost negligible. The overall costs were predominantly influenced by the costs of non‐returning blood donors. As a result, removal of malaria testing and applying a 28‐day deferral for at‐risk donors were the least costly and most cost‐effective of all the options considered.ConclusionThe current screening strategy for malaria in blood donors in Australia is not an efficient use of healthcare resources. Partial or total removal of malaria testing would bring significant cost savings without significantly compromising blood safety.