Key result
Routine preoperative erythrocyte-stimulating agents combined with iron are not cost-effective in anaemic elective surgery patients, with an updated incremental cost of 3.5 to 120 million per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
Why the study?
Current guideline recommendations on routine preoperative iron and ESAs in anaemic elective surgery patients are not based on cost-effectiveness studies.
Does preoperative iron monotherapy or ESA+iron therapy improve cost-effectiveness in anaemic elective surgery patients?
Systematic Review (n=5)
Does preoperative iron monotherapy or ESA+iron therapy improve cost-effectiveness in anaemic elective surgery patients?
Effect estimate: 3.5-120 million GBP or CAD per (QA)LY gained
Routine preoperative ESA therapy combined with iron is not cost-effective in anaemic elective surgery patients, and the cost-effectiveness of iron monotherapy remains unproven.
Preoperative ESA+iron should be avoided due to prohibitive costs; confirms prior analyses while leaving iron monotherapy unproven.
OBJECTIVES: For anaemic elective surgery patients, current clinical practice guidelines weakly recommend the routine use of iron, but not erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs), except for short-acting ESAs in major orthopaedic surgery. This recommendation is, however, not based on any cost-effectiveness studies. The aim of this research was to (1) systematically review the literature regarding cost effectiveness of preoperative iron and/or ESAs in anaemic, elective surgery patients and (2) update existing economic evaluations (EEs) with recent data. METHODS: Eight databases and registries were searched for EEs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting cost-effectiveness data on November 11, 2020. Data were extracted, narratively synthesized and critically appraised using the Philips reporting checklist. Pre-existing full EEs were updated with effectiveness data from a recent systematic review and current cost data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as cost per (quality-adjusted) life-year [(QA)LY] gained. RESULTS: Only five studies (4 EEs and 1 RCT) were included, one on intravenous iron and four on ESAs + oral iron. The EE on intravenous iron only had an in-hospital time horizon. Therefore, cost effectiveness of preoperative iron remains uncertain. The three EEs on ESAs had a lifetime time horizon, but reported cost per (QA)LY gained of 20-65 million (GBP or CAD). Updating these analyses with current data confirmed ESAs to have a cost per (QA)LY gained of 3.5-120 million (GBP or CAD). CONCLUSIONS: Cost effectiveness of preoperative iron is unproven, whereas routine preoperative ESA therapy cannot be considered cost effective in elective surgery, based on the limited available data. Future guidelines should reflect these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Avau et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review in Preoperative anaemia in elective surgery (n=5). Preoperative erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs) and/or iron therapy vs. No preoperative iron or ESA+iron therapy was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per (quality-adjusted) life-year gained (3.5-120 million GBP or CAD per (QA)LY gained). Routine preoperative erythrocyte-stimulating agents combined with iron are not cost-effective in anaemic elective surgery patients, with an updated incremental cost of 3.5 to 120 million per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: