Letter to the Editor Regarding ‘Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Switzerland’

Múñoz, Manuel; Reinisch, Walter

doi:10.1007/s12325-021-02000-5

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The apparently biased interpretation of the efficacy difference between FCM and FDI in the paper by Aksan et al (2017) [48] formed the basis for three cost-effectiveness analyses of FCM versus FDI and IS, all three of which had Aksan as a co-author [63][64][65]. The first study, which concluded that FCM was more cost-effective than FDI and IS in Switzerland, was criticized for weak methodology, using variable formulae for calculating iron need, relying on the paper by Aksan et al (2017) [48] to project higher efficacy with FCM, failing to consider cost savings with FDI due to fewer infusions required, and an overall bias in favor of FCM [66]. These limitations should also be considered in mind while interpreting the conclusions of the other two cost-effectiveness analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yun,

YuMei,

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is the preferred treatment option for managing severe iron deficiency (ID) and ID anemia (IDA). Three of the available IV iron preparations are ferric derisomaltose (FDI), ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), and iron sucrose (IS). The objective of the present work was to review the published literature about the efficacy, safety, quality of life (QoL), and economic outcomes of using FDI, FCM, and IS for the treatment of ID. A systematic literature search was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies were assessed for quality using appropriate tools, and data were extracted and analyzed for key outcomes. The evidence synthesis was based on published systematic literature reviews (SLRs), meta-analyses (MAs), indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), and health technology assessments (HTAs); we also included economic evaluations performed from a Chinese perspective. Out of 337 initial hits, the review included 12 studies. The findings indicated that FDI, FCM, and IS had comparable efficacy in terms of hemoglobin (Hb) improvement. FDI showed a better safety profile with a lower risk of hypophosphatemia, hypersensitivity reactions, and cardiovascular adverse events (AEs) compared to IS and FCM. FDI also demonstrated better cost-effectiveness compared to IS, with potential cost savings attributed to fewer infusions and improved compliance. None of the included studies evaluated QoL after IV iron administration for ID. FDI offers a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective treatment option for ID. It exhibits comparable efficacy to FCM and IS but presents a better safety profile and economic advantage. FDI fulfills the criteria of efficacy, safety, economy, innovation, suitability, and accessibility, making it a promising choice for ID management in China.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yun,

YuMei,

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding ‘Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Switzerland’

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We would like to thank the authors of the letter to the editor for sharing their thoughts on our article comparing the cost-effectiveness of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), iron isomaltoside (IIM), iron sucrose (IS), and orally administered iron for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) subsequent to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Switzerland [1]. Open discussion such as this is a key part of the scientific process to ensure that analyses are fair and robust, which we believe our analysis to be [2]. The letter to the editor raises concerns in four key areas, which we have addressed in turn below. We hope that the clarifications provided give additional helpful information to readers of Advances in Therapy. POPULATIONThe study used pooled data from two randomized controlled trials to inform the analysis. The authors of the letter to the editor raise the concern that this population may not be reflective of the population with IDA subsequent to IBD, citing that the Kulnigg et al. trial enrolled patients with hemoglobin B 10 g/dL, which is a relatively low cutoff for the diagnosis of IDA [3,4]. As mentioned in the ''Discussion''

show abstract

Letter to the Editor Regarding ‘Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Switzerland’

Cited by 2 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding ‘Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Switzerland’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About