Background and Objective: β-Thalassaemia is a major public health problem in Thailand. Use of appropriate iron-chelating agents could prevent thalassaemia-related complications, which are costly to the healthcare system. This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of deferoxamine (DFO), deferiprone (DFP) and deferasirox (DFX) in Thai transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia patients from the societal perspective.

Methods: A Markov model was used to project the life-time costs and outcomes represented as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Data on the clinical efficacy and safety of all therapeutic options were obtained from a systematic review and clinical trials. Transition probabilities were derived from published studies. Costs were obtained from the Thai Drug and Medical Supply Information Center, Thai national reimbursement rate information and other Thai literature sources. A discount rate of 3% was used. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented as year 2009 values. A base-case analysis was performed for thalassaemia patients requiring regular blood transfusion therapy, while a separate analysis was performed for patients requiring low (i.e. symptom-dependent, less frequent) blood transfusion therapy. A series of sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed.

Results: Compared with DFO, using DFP was dominant with lifetime cost savings of $US91 117. Comparing DFX with DFO, the incremental cost was $US522 863 and incremental QALY was 5.77 with an ICER of $US90 648 per QALY. When compared with DFP, the ICER of DFX was $US106 445 per QALY. A cost-effectiveness analysis curve showed the probability of DFX being cost effective was 0% when compared with either DFO or DFP, based on the cost-effectiveness cut-off value of $US2902 per QALY. When compared with DFP, DFX was cost effective only if the DFX cost was as low as $US1.68 per 250 mg tablet. The results of the analysis in patients requiring low blood transfusion therapy were not different from those of the base-case analysis.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that using DFP is cost saving when compared with conventional therapy, while using DFX is not cost effective compared with either DFO or DFP in Thai patients with transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia. Policy-makers and clinicians may consider using such information in their decision-making process in Thailand.