Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34168471›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anaemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the UK.

Aysegül Aksan, Ian L P Beales, Garth Baxter, Antonio Ramirez de Arellano, Simona Gavata, William J Valentine, Barnaby Hunt

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Aysegül AksanInterdisciplinary Crohn Colitis Centre, Rhein-main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Ian L P BealesDepartment of Gastroenterology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.
Garth BaxterVifor Pharma Group, HEOR, London, UK.
Antonio Ramirez de ArellanoVifor Pharma Group, HEOR, Glattbrugg, Switzerland.
Simona GavataVifor Pharma Group, Market Access, Glattbrugg, Switzerland.
William J ValentineOssian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland.
Barnaby HuntOssian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5420-279X
Vifor Pharma (Switzerland) · CHJustus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DENorfolk and Norwich University Hospital · GBVifor Pharma (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) can impair quality of life and increase healthcare costs. Treatment options for IDA-associated IBD include oral iron and intravenous iron formulations (such as ferric carboxymaltose [FCM], ferric derisomaltose [FD, previously known as iron isomaltoside 1000], and iron sucrose [IS]). The present analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron sulfate in terms of additional cost per additional responder in the UK setting.

methodsCost-effectiveness was calculated for FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron individually in terms of the additional cost per additional responder, defined as haemoglobin normalisation or an increase of ≥2 g/dL in haemoglobin levels, in a model developed in Microsoft Excel. Relative efficacy inputs were taken from a previously published network meta-analysis, since there is currently no single head-to-head trial evidence comparing all therapy options. Costs were calculated in 2020 pounds sterling (GBP) capturing the costs of iron preparations, healthcare professional time, and consumables.

resultsThe analysis suggested that FCM may be the most effective intervention, with 81% of patients achieving a response. Response rates with FD, IS, and oral iron were 74%, 75%, and 69%, respectively. Total costs with FCM, FD, IS, and oral iron were GBP 296, GBP 312, GBP 503, and GBP 56, respectively. FCM was found to be more effective and less costly than both FD and IS, and therefore was considered dominant. Compared with oral iron, FCM was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 2045 per additional responder.

conclusionsFCM is likely to be the least costly and most effective IV iron therapy in the UK setting. Compared with oral iron, healthcare payers must decide whether the superior treatment efficacy of FCM is worth the additional cost.

Indexed as

costcost-effectivenessinflammatory bowel diseaseiron deficiency anaemiaUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34168471
PMCPMC8216635
OpenAlexW3172129633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.