Cost Effectiveness of Once-Daily Oral Chelation Therapy with Deferasirox versus Infusional Deferoxamine in Transfusion-Dependent Thalassaemia Patients

Abstract

Results of this analysis of the cost effectiveness of oral deferasirox versus infusional deferoxamine suggest that deferasirox is a cost effective iron chelator from a US healthcare perspective.

Quality of life in patients with transfusion-dependent thalassemia after hematopoietic SCT

“…A recent cost-effectiveness analysis based on patients' preference found that deferasirox resulted in a gain of 4.5 qualityadjusted life years (QALY) per patient at an additional expected lifetime cost of US$126 018 per patient, and the cost per QALY gained was US$28 255, which might be considered cost effective from a US health-care perspective. 26 The current study has several limitations. First, there was no concurrent control group of healthy subjects for comparison.…”

The effect of deferasirox on cardiac iron in thalassemia major: impact of total body iron stores

“…Inadequate compliance with DFO is common and dramatically reduces survival. [2][3][4][5] The oral iron chelator, deferasirox, was approved in November 2005 with the hope of improving patient compliance and quality of life. Numerous well-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of once-daily oral deferasirox in controlling liver iron concentration (LIC).…”

Long-term persistency and costs associated with the use of iron chelation therapies in the treatment of Sickle cell disease within Medicaid programs

“…The long-term ramifications of nonadherence to ICTs in persons with iron overload may manifest in severe clinical complications, particularly hepatic failure, iron-induced cardiomyopathy, or pancreatic iron deposition [9]. Based upon cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, DFX has been reported to be cost-effective relative to DFO in the treatment of transfusional iron overload from the perspective of payers both in the U.S. and U.K [12,[17][18][19][20][21][22]. These models, however, assumed high compliance across patient populations, which do not appear to correspond to actual patterns of care [12].…”

“…Furthermore, even though pharmacoeconomic investigations of DFX have found that the treatment is cost-effective relative to DFO, little attention has focused in the scientific literature upon actual, real-world expenditures associated with both DFO and DFX [12,15,[17][18][19][20][21][22]. Given that patients with SCD that receive chronic blood transfusions require ICTs, good adherence is intuitively warranted to avoid morbidity and mortality associated with iron overload.…”