Intravenous iron for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in China: a patient-level simulation model and cost-utility analysis comparing ferric derisomaltose with iron sucrose

The Efficacy, Safety, and Economic Outcomes of Using Ferric Derisomaltose for the Management of Iron Deficiency in China: A Rapid Health Technology Assessment

“…Thus, this decision enhanced the relevance of the economic evaluation in the Chinese context. Our analysis showed that FDI has the potential to be cost-saving compared to IS in the Chinese healthcare and societal setting, based on the CUA by Hu et al [ 51 ], which was reported prior to the NRDL approval of FDI in January 2023. This is notable because the NRDL approval of a drug is usually associated with a subsequent reduction of the market price of the drug in lieu of improved patient access to the treatment.…”

“…The cost-utility analysis (CUA) reported by Hu et al [ 51 ] in 2022 compared the costs and benefits of FDI and IS for the treatment of IDA in China using a patient-level, discrete-time, illness-death model that estimated the hematologic response (change in Hb levels) and the incidence of cardiovascular events and hypersensitivity reactions with FDI and IS over a five-year time horizon. Input parameters and health state utilities were obtained from published RCTs, and the required number of infusions for FDI and IS was calculated using baseline bodyweight and Hb values and by referring to the respective label inserts.…”

“…FDI was also associated with fewer ADRs including hypersensitivity reactions. With these observations, the authors concluded that compared to IS, FDI was estimated to reduce costs associated with IV iron administration and improve infusion-related QoL outcomes, regardless of the perspective of analysis, and that by reducing societal costs associated with IDA, FDI provides good value for money in China [ 51 ].…”

“…The rapid HTA by Liu et al [ 57 ] in 2022 reported the cost-effectiveness of FDI, IS, and FCM by reviewing a CADTH HTA report, one Chinese pharmacoeconomic evaluation by Hu et al [ 51 ] that has already been summarized previously, and four other pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted outside China, which are beyond the scope of the current review.…”

“…The higher cost savings observed with FDI relative to IS can be attributed to FDI’s ability to be administered at higher doses, requiring fewer infusions and resulting in faster correction of iron deficits. This leads to reduced healthcare resource utilization, fewer work days lost due to illness, and fewer adverse events with FDI [ 24 , 25 , 51 , 54 , 72 ]. By these results, we believe that FDI will also be cost-effective from the patient perspective as well compared to IS since FDI is associated with fewer hospital visits or days of hospitalization, fewer infusions and thus lower costs and QoL losses associated with infusion sessions, and fewer days of missed work due to faster ID correction.…”