ArticleHealth economics review2026
Cost-effectiveness of using Intravenous Ferric Carboxymaltose compared to Intravenous Iron Sucrose for treatment of iron deficiency anemia in pregnancy.
Article in Health economics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIron deficiency anemia (IDA) in pregnancy is a major public health concern in India, contributing significantly to adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Intravenous iron sucrose (IV ISC) is widely used; however, its low permissible dose necessitates multiple visits, reducing adherence and increasing out-of-pocket expenditure. Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (IV FCM) offers an advantage of complete dose administration in a single visit, but the higher price of the drug is the major deterrent for its procurement. The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of IV FCM versus IV ISC for managing moderate to severe IDA in pregnancy in the Indian public health system.
methodsA decision tree model was developed from an abridged societal perspective. The time horizon was defined as the period from the second trimester to delivery, including early neonatal outcomes. Effectiveness inputs were derived from both primary and secondary sources. Costs were estimated using national costing databases and procurement records. The outcome was measured in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) gained and incremental health gains. Uncertainty was explored using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Budget impact analysis estimated the fiscal implication of adopting IV FCM.
resultsThe use of IV FCM compared with IV ISC for managing moderate to severe IDA in pregnant women incurred an incremental cost of INR 1,316 (USD 15.62) for an additional 0.069 QALYs. The ICER of INR 19,091.66 (USD 226.69) per QALY gained-equivalent to 0.08 times the cost-effectiveness threshold of 1x Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita per QALY-demonstrates that IV FCM is cost-effective. IV FCM also provided measurable clinical benefits, including improved anemia correction and reductions in adverse drug events, adverse neonatal outcomes, and maternal mortality. Sensitivity analyses showed > 98% probability of cost-effectiveness. While the budget impact indicates a higher financial outlay for IV FCM, this increased expenditure is associated with substantial incremental health gains.
conclusionsIV FCM is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to IV ISC for managing moderate to severe IDA in pregnancy, improving anemia recovery, maternal and neonatal outcomes while reducing out-of-pocket expenditure, thereby strengthening Anemia Mukta Bharat and Universal Health Coverage in India.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.