OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop an economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ferric maltol vs ferric carboxymaltose for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in IBD patients in Sweden and Finland.

METHODS: A Markov model was developed with four health states: Response (>= 2 Hb g/L vs. baseline), non-response, withdrawal (treatment switch) and death. Efficacy data (Hb g/L response rates) and withdrawal were obtained from two separate phase III trials where the populations were similar with respect to important laboratory base-line values. As there was no common anchor treatment in the clinical trials the health economic analysis was based on a naïve indirect comparison. Local price lists were used to estimate the cost for drug, administration and withdrawals. Two cost-effectiveness scenarios were conducted; one clinical trial scenario, (52 weeks use of Ferric maltol), and one clinical practice scenario, where the use of Ferric maltol was more in line with the expected use in clinical practice (12 weeks). Time horizon was one year (no discount rate). Stochastic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS: In the clinical trial scenario ferric maltol saved costs (Sweden: Euro 188.5; Finland: Euro 633) at the expense of slight losses in QALYs (0.002) and response weeks (0.9). The cost saving per lost QALY was Euro 113,751 (Sweden) and 381,750 (Finland). In the clinical practice scenario, the cost savings (Sweden: Euro 528.8; Finland: Euro 1,068) and losses in QALYs (0.008) and response weeks (4.1) were larger. The cost saving per lost QALY was Euro 69, 615 (Sweden) and 140,588 (Finland).

CONCLUSIONS: Ferric maltol was cost saving in Sweden and Finland compared to ferric carboxymaltose at minimal loss in QALYs. Hence ferric maltol can be considered as good use of money in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in IBD patients in Sweden and Finland.