Budget Impact of Intravenous Iron Therapy with Ferric Carboxymaltose in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) and Iron Deficiency in Switzerland

Elisabeth Brock (), Giorgio Moschovitis, Micha T. Maeder and Otmar Pfister
Additional contact information
Elisabeth Brock: Market Access Switzerland/Health Economics Europe, HealthEcon AG
Giorgio Moschovitis: Regional Hospital of Lugano, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC)
Micha T. Maeder: Kantonsspital St. Gallen
Otmar Pfister: University Hospital Basel

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2022, vol. 6, issue 5, No 10, 735-743

Abstract: Abstract Aims A budget impact analysis compared treating patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and iron deficiency (ID) in Switzerland with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo. Methods Clinical data from four international randomized trials showed that FCM versus placebo treatment was associated with a reduced hospitalization rate due to HF. The budget impact of this was modelled over 1 year. Hospital treatment costs for HFrEF, FCM drug costs, and estimated patient numbers were based on published data, official tariffs, specially commissioned analyses of SwissDRG data, and clinical and diagnosis-related groups (DRG) coding expert opinion. The original cost year was 2015. Sensitivity analyses were conducted including updated unit costs from 2019/2020. Results FCM treatment was associated with average cost savings of Swiss Francs (SFr) 503 per patient per year from the perspective of the Swiss mandatory health insurance system. Extrapolating across all eligible HFrEF patients with ID in Switzerland, this amounted to estimated savings of SFr 23,336,873. Sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust in the face of changes to input parameters like treatment costs, different hospital settings, updated unit costs, and including outpatient treatment and patient co-payments in the analysis. Conclusions The present analysis shows that using FCM to treat HFrEF patients with ID in line with current guideline recommendations resulted not only in medical benefits but also in significant cost savings. The analysis also provides an example of the pitfalls of transferring economic evaluation results, even between countries with similar hospital reimbursement systems.

Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-022-00341-7 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-022-00341-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-022-00341-7

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().