Effectiveness and costs of a stepwise versus an all-in-one approach to diagnose mild bleeding disorders.

The diagnostic work-up of patients referred to the haematologist for bleeding evaluation is performed in a stepwise way: bleeding history and results of screening laboratory tests guide further diagnostic evaluation. This can be ineffective, time-consuming and burdensome for patients. To improve this strategy, the initial laboratory investigation can be extended. In a model-based approach, effectiveness and costs of a conventional stepwise versus a newly proposed all-in-one diagnostic approach for bleeding evaluation were evaluated and compared, using data from an observational patient cohort study, including adult patients referred for bleeding evaluation. In the all-in-one approach, specialized platelet function tests, coagulation factors, and fibrinolysis tests were included in the initial investigation. Final diagnosis, hospital resource use and costs and patient burden were compared. A total of 150 patients were included. Compared to the stepwise approach, in the all-in-one approach, 19 additional patients reached a diagnosis and patient burden was lower, but total costs per patient were higher [€359, 95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) 283-518, p = 0.001]. For bleeding evaluation of patients referred to the haematologist, an all-in-one diagnostic approach has a higher diagnostic yield and reduces patient burden, at a higher cost. This raises the question what costs justify the diagnosis of a bleeding disorder and a less burdensome diagnostic strategy.

The development of D antibodies after D-mismatched kidney transplantation in a setting of reduced immunosuppression.

BACKGROUND: D antigens are not taken into account in the allocation of solid organs. Female transplant recipients with D antibodies as a consequence of D-mismatched kidney transplantation may develop hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn in future pregnancies. We examined D antibody development in transplant recipients who received D-mismatched kidney transplantation in absence of D prophylaxis and in a setting of reduced immunosuppression. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: From 1993 until 2015, a total of 1355 kidney patients received transplantations in our center of whom 156 received a D-mismatched graft. A retrospective analysis was conducted; frozen stored sera obtained from transplant recipients 3 months after transplantation were tested for irregular red blood cell (RBC) antibodies using a three-cell screening and an identification panel. In the case of D antibody positivity, additional testing was performed 1 month before transplantation. RESULTS: In seven of 156 (4.5%) transplant recipients we found irregular RBC antibodies after transplantation, of which five (3.2%) were determined to be D antibodies. We observed only one (0.6%) recipient without D antibodies before transplantation. CONCLUSION: Although the risk of D antibody development is considerably lower after D-mismatched kidney transplantation than D-mismatched pregnancy, anti-D prophylaxis may still be advisable for female transplant recipients of childbearing age.