Abstract
Background In Australia, iron deficiency anaemia can be managed by ferric carboxymaltose, and iron polymaltose given via either a traditional slow or new rapid infusion protocol. These differ in their manufacturing, administration, and monitoring requirements, with unknown associated costs. Aim To compare the direct costs of iron infusions used in Australia; and explore potential savings associated with increased uptake of the least-expensive option at a local hospital. Method A time-motion method was used to determine the labour and consumables associated with each infusion protocol. Secondly, a frequency analysis identified the most common iron infusion doses prescribed at the study site. The total direct costs per protocol were compared at these doses and then the potential savings from switching to the lowest-costing of these protocols where possible were explored. Results The most common doses were 0.5 g, 1 g, 1.5 g and 2 g. At these dose points, ferric carboxymaltose infusions are the least expensive, but only if national health subsidies are applied. In cases where they do not apply, iron polymaltose prepared from ampoules and infused using the rapid protocol (‘Iron Polymaltose Ampoules Rapid’) is the least expensive. Switching all applicable ferric carboxymaltose infusions and iron polymaltose infusions administered using the slow infusion protocol to Iron Polymaltose Ampoules Rapid is projected to yield up to $12,000 worth of savings annually. Conclusions Increased use of the Iron Polymaltose Ampoules Rapid protocol when government-subsidised options are not available is projected to have cost-saving outcomes. Investigation of implementation strategies to increase the use of this protocol are warranted.
Source: Chuin Khai Lim 1, Michael Connolly 2 3, Corinne Mirkazemi 2
PMID: 34498215 DOI: 10.1007/s11096-021-01320-4
