Cost-effectiveness analysis of ferric carboxymaltose in iron-deficient patients with chronic heart failure in Sweden

19Citations
Citations of this article
68Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: Iron deficiency is a common but treatable comorbidity in chronic heart failure (CHF) that is associated with impaired health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the intravenous iron preparation ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) for the treatment of iron deficiency in CHF from a Swedish healthcare perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis with a time horizon of 24 weeks was performed to compare FCM treatment with placebo. Data on health outcomes and medical resource use were mainly taken from the FAIR-HF trial and combined with Swedish cost data. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as well as the change in per-patient costs for primary care and hospital care. Results: In the FCM group compared with placebo, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are higher (difference=0.037 QALYs), but so are per-patient costs [(difference=SEK 2789 (€303)]. Primary care and hospital care equally share the additional costs, but within hospitals there is a major shift of costs from inpatient care to outpatient care. The ICER is SEK 75,389 (€8194) per QALY. The robustness of the result is supported by sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Treatment of iron deficiency in CHF with FCM compared with placebo is estimated to be cost-effective. The ICER in the base case scenario is twice as high as previously thought, but noticeably below SEK 500,000 (€54,300) per QALY, an informal average reference value used by the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Increased HRQoL and fewer hospitalizations are the key drivers of this result.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hofmarcher, T., & Borg, S. (2015). Cost-effectiveness analysis of ferric carboxymaltose in iron-deficient patients with chronic heart failure in Sweden. Journal of Medical Economics, 18(7), 492–501. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2015.1029491

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free