New Data Show Oral Ferric Maltol (FERACCRU) May Be a Cost-effective Alternative to Intravenous (IV) Carboxymaltose With at Least as Great Benefits in the Quality of Life of Patients With Iron Deficiency Anaemia and Inflammatory Bowel Disease - Seite 2

Patient-reported outcomes are an important way to measure health and wellbeing. Measures of HRQoL in IDA have the potential to reflect both IDA symptoms and treatment-related issues such as adverse effects, so are a useful tool to capture additional treatment benefits beyond those typically reported in clinical studies.^[3] 

In the quality of life post hoc analysis, the HRQoL benefits of FM and IV FCM and their relationship to haematological parameters were analysed using data from a randomised controlled trial. The analysis showed that improvements in SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were slightly greater with FM than with IV FCM (difference not statistically significant). FM patients experienced at least as great benefit in all SF-36 domains such as general and mental health, bodily pain, vitality, physical, social and emotional functioning.^[3] 

IDA imposes a substantial economic burden on the healthcare payer system resulting primarily from increased medical costs and hospital admissions. The second post hoc analysis looked at the impact on productivity comparing the associated productivity loss of oral FM vs. IV FCM. The study found that 50% of patients treated with IV FCM lost at least one full day due to treatment, with 1 in 15 losing 4-6 days. Productivity loss was quantified, with IV FCM treatment associated with losses between €0.00 and €107.21 in 50% of patients, €129.17 and €387.51 in 43% of patients and €516.68 and €775.02 in 7% of patients. As FM was administered orally by the patient and did not require any in-hospital treatment administration, there was no treatment linked productivity loss. FM did not have the indirect costs associated with IV FCM and as such may provide an oral alternative to IV iron in patients with IBD, enabling them to avoid the disruption of everyday life activities due to the need for in-hospital IV administration.^[2] 

The third post hoc analysis compared the health care resource use (HCRU) associated with oral FM and IV FCM. The data showed that total per patient drug costs (acquisition and administration) were approximately 1.6 times higher for treatment with IV FCM than FM. The total cost of IV FCM is not only influenced by the higher drug cost, but additional costs associated with IV administration which was required to be carried out in a hospital or outpatient setting. FM has no additional costs or resource use associated with administration and is therefore less of a burden on local health care systems. ^[1]