ISBN: 978-1-4731-3093-7 cause hospitalisation event rates in CONFIRM-HF were similar to those of FAIR-HF. CONFIRM-HF did not report the EQ-5D index, only the EQ-5D VAS which suggested that there was a benefit in quality of life. Comparing the EQ- 5D VAS and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores from FAIR-HF and CONFIRM-HF the clinical review shows that there was a smaller quality of life gain in CONFIRM-HF than that found in FAIR-HF. The committee considered that the overall cost will be lower in CONFIRM-HF than FAIR-HF due to the reduced intervention cost and similar reduced hospitalisation rate to that of FAIR-HF and therefore considered that IV iron therapy administered according to the CONFIRM-HF dosing regime and over a 12 month period is likely to be cost-effective. Due to the lack of evidence on the effectiveness of IV iron after 12 months and whether to continue or stop supplementation, the committee were still concerned that 12 months was not a sufficient follow-up period to capture all costs and effects of iron supplementation. The unit costs of oral iron were also presented to the committee for consideration. The committee noted that although oral iron is much cheaper, as mentioned above, the clinical evidence suggests that there is no clinical benefit. In addition, the committee also discussed that there are also compliance issues in clinical practice and therefore there is not likely to be any benefit of oral iron to people with HF. The high cost of IV iron supplementation and the large population of people with HF requiring treatment would mean a positive recommendation for IV iron supplementation would have a large cost impact for the NHS. 