Palle Bager1, Jens F Dahlerup. 1. Department of Medicine V (Hepatology and Gastroenterology), Aarhus University Hospital, Noerrebrogade 44, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. pallbage@rm.dk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Anemia is common in IBD patients and intravenous iron treatment is preferred. The drug cost of intravenous iron carboxymaltose is approximately twice the cost of intravenous iron sucrose. The aim was to evaluate the health care costs of intravenous iron sucrose (Venofer®, Vifor) and intravenous iron carboxymaltose (Ferinject®, Vifor) treatment to IBD patients in an outpatient setting. METHODS: Based on data from 111 IBD patients treated with intravenous iron in an outpatient setting health care costs were evaluated by means of Budget Impact Analysis, Cost Effective Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis. RESULTS: The Cost Effective Analysis showed that iron carboxymaltose was more cost-effective than iron sucrose, due to fewer outpatient setting visits. Even a sensitivity analysis using a reduced patient income (50%) in the Cost Effective Analysis showed iron carboxymaltose to be the most cost effective treatment. The Budget Impact Analysis from a hospital perspective showed that iron carboxymaltose was more expensive than iron sucrose regardless of the dose given. In contrast the Cost Benefit Analysis showed that the average patients' 'willingness to pay' for a total of iron dose of 1400 mg was €233 in order to reduce the number of infusions from 7 to 2 by using iron carboxymaltose rather than iron sucrose. CONCLUSION: Both the Cost Effective Analysis and the Cost Benefit Analysis showed clearly that iron carboxymaltose is a more cost effective way of giving intravenous iron than iron sucrose in IBD patients. Only the Budget Impact Analysis showed that intravenous iron sucrose was the cheapest choice if only direct cost was included in the analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Anemia is common in IBDpatients and intravenous iron treatment is preferred. The drug cost of intravenous iron carboxymaltose is approximately twice the cost of intravenous iron sucrose. The aim was to evaluate the health care costs of intravenous iron sucrose (Venofer®, Vifor) and intravenous iron carboxymaltose (Ferinject®, Vifor) treatment to IBDpatients in an outpatient setting. METHODS: Based on data from 111 IBDpatients treated with intravenous iron in an outpatient setting health care costs were evaluated by means of Budget Impact Analysis, Cost Effective Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis. RESULTS: The Cost Effective Analysis showed that iron carboxymaltose was more cost-effective than iron sucrose, due to fewer outpatient setting visits. Even a sensitivity analysis using a reduced patient income (50%) in the Cost Effective Analysis showed iron carboxymaltose to be the most cost effective treatment. The Budget Impact Analysis from a hospital perspective showed that iron carboxymaltose was more expensive than iron sucrose regardless of the dose given. In contrast the Cost Benefit Analysis showed that the average patients' 'willingness to pay' for a total of iron dose of 1400 mg was €233 in order to reduce the number of infusions from 7 to 2 by using iron carboxymaltose rather than iron sucrose. CONCLUSION: Both the Cost Effective Analysis and the Cost Benefit Analysis showed clearly that iron carboxymaltose is a more cost effective way of giving intravenous iron than iron sucrose in IBDpatients. Only the Budget Impact Analysis showed that intravenous iron sucrose was the cheapest choice if only direct cost was included in the analysis.