A patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of iron isomaltoside versus ferric carboxymaltose for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in the United Kingdom. (2nd July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pollock, Richard F.; Muduma, Gorden
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical economics. Volume 23:Number 7(2020)
• Page Start: 751
• Page End: 759
• Publication Date: 2020-07-02
• Subjects: Iron -- administration -- intravenous -- iron deficiency anemia -- costs and cost analysis; I11 -- D61 -- C63; Medical care -- Cost control -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- Periodicals; 362.10941
• DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1745535
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6998

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Intravenous iron is the recommended treatment for patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) where oral iron is ineffective or rapid iron replenishment is required. Two high-dose, rapid-administration intravenous iron formulations are currently available in the UK: iron isomaltoside 1000/ferric derisomaltose (IIM) and ferric carboxymaltose (FCM). An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) recently showed that improvement from baseline hemoglobin was significantly larger with IIM than FCM. The objective was to use the ITC findings to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IIM versus FCM from the UK healthcare payer perspective. Methods: A patient-level simulation model was developed in R to evaluate the cost per patient experiencing hematological response with IIM versus FCM. The model generated a simulated cohort from parametric distributions of baseline hemoglobin and bodyweight. Changes in hemoglobin were modeled based on data from the ITC, covaried with baseline hemoglobin based on patient-level data from a randomized controlled trial. Posological models of the iron formulations were developed based on the summaries of product characteristics. UK-specific costs were based on healthcare resource groups. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing hematological response was 9.0% higher with IIM relative to FCM (79.0% versus 70.0%), based on modeling of clinically realistic, correlated distributions of baseline hemoglobin and change from baseline hemoglobin. The mean number of infusions needed to administer the required dose was 1.92 with FCM, versus 1.38 with IIM, resulting in costs of £637 and £457 per treated patient with FCM and IIM respectively, corresponding to respective costs of £910 and £579 per responder. Conclusions: The analysis showed that using IIM rather than FCM in patients with IDA was dominant and would reduce the number of iron infusions required to correct iron deficiency, thereby reducing the costs associated with IDA treatment and simultaneously increasing the proportion of patients with IDA experiencing a clinically meaningful hematological response.