4.5 Article

Economic Evaluation of Ferric Carboxymaltose for the Management of Hemodialysis Patients with Iron Deficiency Anemia in Italy

Journal

ADVANCES IN THERAPY
Volume 36, Issue 11, Pages 3253-3264

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01089-z

Keywords

Budget; Cost-analysis; Healthcare; Hemodialysis; Ferric carboxymaltose; Nephrology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk of developing both iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia (IDA). The administration of intravenous iron therefore represents the standard of care for the management of anemia in this patient setting. Methods A retrospective cohort of 38 HD patients in Italy was analyzed to assess the clinical and economic implications of switching from intravenous ferric gluconate (FG) to ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) on achievement of adequate hemoglobin (Hb) values and iron balance. The total observational period for each patient was 12 months, 6 months before and 6 months after switching to iron FCM. The pharmacoeconomic analysis considered the hospital perspective and the consumption of iron, blood transfusions and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), including healthcare personnel time. Results Switching from FG to FCM in dialysis adult patients with IDA allows a cost reduction per patient/month in the range euro14-46, considering the use of biosimilar ESA or originator ESA, respectively. The percentage of patients with Hb target values increased from 63% to 82%, considering the entire observation period. In addition, other clinical parameters (ferritin, transferrin saturation, erythropoietin resistance index) improved after switching from FG to FCM. Conclusion FCM in HD patients was shown to provide a favorable efficacy profile over FG, with a lower cost per patient, mainly driven by a consistent reduction of ESA consumption. Funding Vifor Pharma Italia Srl.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available