Economic Evaluation of Chelation Regimens for β-Thalassemia Major: a Systematic Review.

backgroundDeferoxamine (DFO) or Deferiprone (DFP) or Deferasirox (DFX) monotherapy and DFO and DFP combination therapy (DFO+DFP) were four commonly implemented now chelation regimens for the iron overloaded of β-thalassemia major. This systematic review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of four chelation regimens and provide evidence for the rational use of chelation regimens for β-thalassemia major therapy in the clinic.

methodsA systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Data, and WanFang Data was conducted in April 2018. In addition, a manual search was performed. Two researchers, working independently, selected the papers, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included documents. Each included paper was evaluated using a checklist developed by Drummond

resultsThe number of records was initially 968, and eight papers met the final eligibility criteria. All the included eight papers were cost-utility analyses, and their methodological quality was fair. In these eight papers, nineteen studies were present. Nine studies of DFX versus DFO had contradictory results. Out of the nineteen studies, three studies of DFX versus DFP established that using DFP was cost-effective. Three studies of DFP versus DFO proved that using DFP was cost-effective. One survey of DFO+DFP versus DFO found that using DFO was cost-effective. One study of DFO+DFP versus DFP found that using DFP was cost-effective. Moreover, there were two studies of DFO+DFP versus DFX, but we cannot be sure which one of two chelation regimens was cost-effective.

conclusionIn brief, DFP is cost-effective, followed by DFO or DFX, when an iron chelator is to be used alone for β-thalassemia iron overload treatment. All studies that compared DFO+DFP with DFO (or DFP) monotherapy established that the DFO+DFP was not cost-effective. Existing studies about DFO+DFP versus DFX could not prove which one of two chelation regimens was cost-effective. However, due to the low number of DFO+DFP versus DFO (or DFP or DFX) monotherapy studies, more extensive, high-quality research is required for further analysis and confirmation of our findings. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness is not an absolute issue when in different countries (regions) the results are opposite for other countries (regions). As a result, the local/national context had a substantial influence on the results of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation.