Net costs from three perspectives of using low versus high osmolality contrast medium in diagnostic angiocardiography.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted an economic analysis to assess the extent to which a reduction in adverse drug reactions induced by low osmolality compared with high osmolality contrast media during diagnostic angiocardiography would result in savings to hospitals, society and third-party payers that would offset the substantially higher price of low osmolality contrast medium. BACKGROUND: Substitution of low osmolality for high osmolality contrast media in the approximately 1 million diagnostic angiocardiographic procedures performed each year in the United States could substantially increase health care costs. Cost-effectiveness estimates should include savings that might occur through reduced costs of managing adverse drug reactions. METHODS: In a randomized clinical trial of 505 persons under-going diagnostic angiography with either high osmolality or low osmolality contrast medium, we measured and compared 1) material costs of contrast media, and 2) costs from three perspectives of incremental resources used to manage contrast-related adverse drug reactions. We also performed sensitivity analyses to examine the effect of different assumptions with regard to relative risk, absolute risk and costs of adverse drug reactions on estimates of net cost of use of high osmolality and low osmolality contrast media. RESULTS: One-hundred thirty-seven (54.2%) of 253 patients receiving high osmolality contrast medium and 44 (17.5%) of 252 patients receiving low osmolality contrast medium experienced adverse drug reactions. The average cost (from society's perspective) of resources used to manage adverse drug reactions per patient undergoing angiography was significantly (p = 0.0001) greater for high osmolality (mean $249) versus low osmolality (mean $92) contrast medium. Differential costs (from the hospital's perspective) were $67 greater for high osmolality contrast medium. Charges and professional fees (from the payer's perspective) were $182 greater for high osmolality (mean $312) than for low osmolality (mean $130) contrast medium (p = 0.42, NS). The higher differential and average costs of managing adverse drug reactions with high osmolality contrast medium offset 33% and 75%, respectively, of the $207 difference in mean material costs, but these estimates are sensitive to infrequent high cost cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although low osmolality contrast medium is not cost-saving in diagnostic angiocardiography, its higher price is partially offset by lower management costs of adverse drug reactions. The cost offset for the hospital is lower than that for society and may not be realized by third-party payers. These methods and results may be useful in establishing clinical and payment guidelines for use of alternative contrast media in diagnostic angiocardiography.

Histopaque provides optimal mouse islet purification kinetics: comparison study with Ficoll, iodixanol and dextran.

Islet transplantation has become a very promising treatment for type 1 diabetes. To facilitate further clinical improvements in this exciting field, rodent islets are used to evaluate new strategies and modifications. One method to purify islets is on a density gradient, although the optimal gradient component can be debated. N=6 separate mouse islet isolations were used and the resulting islets were separated and purified on either a Ficoll, Histopaque, Dextran or Iodixanol gradient. Islets were assessed for recovery, viability, purity and in vitro functionality. Aliquots were transplanted into diabetic mice to assess in vivo functionality and survival. There was no difference in the number of islets recovered across groups nor in the size of recovered islets. Use of a Ficoll or Histopaque gradient led to the most pure and viable islets in comparison to Dextran and Iodixanol. Functionally, islets isolated on a Ficoll gradient had the highest glucose-stimulated insulin release in vitro while performing equally to Histopaque and Dextran gradients in vivo. Using a Ficoll gradient, however, comes at a higher monetary cost. We recommend using a Histopaque gradient, which led to the isolation of viable and functional islets with a reduced cost as compared to a Ficoll gradient.

Safety and cost effectiveness of high-osmolality as compared with low-osmolality contrast material in patients undergoing cardiac angiography.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Low-osmolality contrast agents produce fewer hemodynamic and electrophysiologic alterations during cardiac angiography, but they are 20 times more expensive than high-osmolality contrast agents. In a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a nonionic low-osmolality contrast agent (Omnipaque 350) with a high-osmolality agent that does not avidly bind calcium (Hypaque 76) in 505 patients undergoing cardiac angiography, we determined the incidence of minor, mild, moderate, and severe adverse reactions, identified risk factors for such reactions, and evaluated the cost effectiveness of various strategies for the use of contrast material. RESULTS: The 253 patients who received a high-osmolality contrast agent were three times more likely to have a moderate adverse reaction (95 percent confidence interval for the relative risk, 1.6 to 5.5) but no more likely to have a severe reaction (95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 2.3) than the 252 patients who received a low-osmolality agent. All 10 severe reactions occurred in patients who were older than 60 years or had unstable angina. Patients with these characteristics were also 3.5 times more likely (95 percent confidence interval, 1.8 to 6.8) to have a moderate reaction (44 of 310 patients, or 14 percent) than those without either characteristic (8 of 195 patients, or 4 percent). We estimated that the incremental cost of each moderate reaction avoided would be $1,698 with a strategy that involved giving a low-osmolality contrast agent only to patients who were over 60 years of age or had unstable angina, instead of giving a high-osmolality agent to all patients. The incremental cost per moderate reaction avoided by giving a low-osmolality contrast agent to all patients rather than only to those over 60 or with unstable angina would be $5,842. CONCLUSIONS: The use of contrast agents with low rather than high osmolality during cardiac angiography reduces the risk of moderate, but not of severe, adverse reactions to the agent used. A strategy of reserving low-osmolality contrast agents for use in patients at high risk for adverse reactions would be more cost effective than one requiring their use in all patients.

Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents for i.v. urography and CT: safety and effect on cost.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the selective use of low-osmolality contrast material for excretory urography and CT is safe and if it saves money. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the University Medical Center in Tucson, a questionnaire was developed to identify high-risk patients who would benefit from the use of a low-osmolality contrast agent. High-risk patients were defined as those with a history of a reaction to contrast material, severe allergies, asthma, severe cardiac disease, multiple myeloma, sickle cell disease, polycythemia, pheochromocytoma, or renal impairment. Beginning in March 1993, the questionnaire was given to all adult outpatients scheduled for daytime excretory urography and routine CT studies of the head and body. Only patients identified as high risk were given a low-osmolality (non-ionic) contrast agent. All other patients received high-osmolality (ionic) contrast material. The contrast agent chosen for a patient was determined by the person administering the questionnaire, usually a radiologic technologist. RESULTS: From March 1993 through December 1993, 1114 adult daytime outpatient excretory urographic and contrast-enhanced CT studies were examined at our institution. In 235 (21%) of the studies, a low-osmolality agent was used and in 879 (79%) studies, a high-osmolality agent was used. This represented a reduction in the use of low-osmolality agents from more than 90% of patients to 21%, an annual cost reduction from $288,000 to $60,480. We observed no untoward reactions to contrast material that could be specifically attributed to the increased use of high-osmolality agents. CONCLUSIONS: Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents during excretory urography and CT can provide substantial cost savings and is not associated with a significant risk of major complications.