P1050 A cost-utility analysis of ferric derisomaltose versus ferric carboxymaltose in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and iron deficiency anaemia in Finland

Abstract

Abstract Background Anaemia is a common extraintestinal manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with iron deficiency being the most common cause. Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) can be treated with oral iron, but where oral administration is contraindicated, not tolerated, or proves to be ineffective, intravenous (IV) iron is the preferred treatment option, facilitating rapid iron replenishment. Ferric derisomaltose (FDI) and ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) are two high-dose, rapid-infusion, IV iron formulations that have recently been compared in three head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with FCM administration resulting in significantly higher hypophosphataemia incidence versus FDI, and phosphate monitoring after repeat FCM infusions is now recommended in the FCM product information (PI). Between 2000 and 2020, Finland has seen the average incidence of IBD increase by 2.4% annually, accompanied by a commensurate increase in sequelae such as IDA. The objective of the present study was therefore to evaluate the cost-utility of FDI versus FCM in patients with IBD and IDA in Finland. Methods A published patient-level simulation model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of FDI versus FCM in Finland. The model captured quality of life differences based on SF-36 data from the PHOSPHARE-IBD RCT and differences in the number of FDI and FCM infusions required. A Finnish societal perspective was adopted and the analysis was conducted over a five-year time horizon. Unit costs were obtained from publicly available Finnish sources. Costs were reported in 2022 Euros and a discount rate of 3% per annum was applied to future costs and effects. Results Over the five-year time horizon, patients received 3.95 courses of iron treatment on average, requiring 1.63 fewer infusions of FDI than FCM (5.57 versus 7.20). This resulted in iron procurement and administration cost savings of EUR 471 with FDI versus FCM (EUR 2,286 versus EUR 2,757). Differences in health-related quality of life and the number of IV iron infusions resulted in an increase of 0.076 quality-adjusted life years with FDI versus FCM. Further cost savings of EUR 273 over five years were also realised with FDI versus FCM, driven by reduced need for phosphate testing (saving EUR 90) and reduced travel and productivity loss (saving EUR 183). Total cost savings were EUR 745 (Figure) and FDI was therefore the dominant intervention. Conclusion Relative to FCM, FDI resulted in improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy in Finnish patients with IBD and IDA. FDI also resulted in cost savings, arising from reduced infusion frequency, phosphate monitoring, patient travel, and productivity loss. FDI therefore represents the dominant choice of IV iron in Finnish patients with IBD and IDA.