scholarly journals Sublingual immunotherapy tablet: a cost-minimizing alternative in the treatment of tree pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis in Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne K. Ellis ◽  
Rémi Gagnon ◽  
Eva Hammerby ◽  
Julia Shen ◽  
Sheena Gosain

Abstract Background A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to evaluate the economic implications of introducing the SQ Tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets marketed as ITULATEK® (Health Canada regulatory approval in April 2020) for the treatment of pollen-induced (birch, alder and/or hazel) seasonal allergic rhinitis in Canada (Ontario and Quebec), where Tree Pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is already an available treatment option. Methods A CMA was deemed appropriate and was based on the assumption that the SQ Tree SLIT-tablets have comparable efficacy to Tree Pollen SCIT. A societal perspective was adopted in the model, including relevant costs of medications, costs of health care services, and productivity losses. The time horizon in the model was three years, which corresponds to a minimal treatment course of allergy immunotherapy. Resource use and costs were based on published sources, where available, and validated by Canadian specialist clinicians (allergists) in active practice in Ontario and in Quebec, where applicable. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied in accordance with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) guidelines. To assess the robustness of the results, scenario analyses were performed by testing alternative assumptions for selected parameters (e.g., Tree Pollen SCIT resource use, discount rates, number of injections, annual SCIT dosing with maintenance injections, and nurse time support), to evaluate their impact on the results of the analysis. Results The direct costs, including the drug costs, and physician services costs, for three years of treatment, were similar for both SQ Tree SLIT-tablets vs. Tree Pollen SCIT in both Ontario and Quebec ($2799.01 and $2838.70 vs. $2233.76 and $2266.05 respectively). However, when the indirect costs (including patient’s travel expenses and lost working hours) are included in the model, total savings for the treatment with SQ Tree SLIT-tablets of $1111.79 for Ontario and $1199.87 for Quebec were observed. Scenario analyses were conducted and showed that changes in assumptions continue to result in the savings of SQ Tree SLIT- tablets over Tree Pollen SCIT. Conclusions The CMA indicates that SQ Tree SLIT-tablets are a cost-minimizing alternative to Tree Pollen SCIT when considered from a societal perspective in Ontario and Quebec.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne K. Ellis ◽  
Rémi Gagnon ◽  
Eva Hammerby ◽  
Julia Shen ◽  
Sheena Gosain

Abstract Background: A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to evaluate the economic implications of introducing the SQ Tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets marketed as ITULATEK® (Health Canada regulatory approval in April 2020) for the treatment of pollen-induced (birch, alder and/or hazel) seasonal allergic rhinitis in Canada (Ontario and Quebec), where Tree Pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is already an available treatment option.Methods: A CMA was deemed appropriate and was based on the assumption that the SQ Tree SLIT-tablets have comparable efficacy to Tree Pollen SCIT. A societal perspective was adopted in the model, including relevant costs of medications, costs of health care services, and productivity losses. The time horizon in the model was three years, which corresponds to a minimal treatment course of allergy immunotherapy. Resource use and costs were based on published sources, where available, and validated by Canadian specialist clinicians (allergists) in active practice in Ontario and in Quebec, where applicable. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied in accordance with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) guidelines. To assess the robustness of the results, scenario analyses were performed by testing alternative assumptions for selected parameters (e.g., Tree Pollen SCIT resource use, discount rates, number of injections, annual SCIT dosing with maintenance injections, and nurse time support), to evaluate their impact on the results of the analysis.Results: The direct costs, including the drug costs, physician and nursing services costs, for three years of treatment, were similar for both SQ Tree SLIT-tablets vs. Tree Pollen SCIT in both Ontario and Quebec ($2,799.01 and $2,838.70 vs. $2,813.41 and $2771.81, respectively). However, when the indirect costs (including patient’s travel expenses and lost working hours) are included in the model, total savings for the treatment with SQ Tree SLIT-tablets of $1,691.44 for Ontario and $1,705.63 for Quebec were observed. Scenario analyses were conducted and showed that changes in assumptions continue to result in the savings of SQ Tree SLIT- tablets over Tree Pollen SCIT. Conclusions: The CMA indicates that SQ Tree SLIT-tablets are a cost-minimizing alternative to Tree Pollen SCIT when considered from a societal perspective in Ontario and Quebec.


2009 ◽  
Vol 124 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
I H Can ◽  
A İslam ◽  
D S Karasoy ◽  
E E Samim

AbstractObjective:To test the association between clinical allergic sensitisation to pollens and the profile and load of those pollens, in Ankara, Turkey.Materials and methods:Forty-three patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were included. Clinical sensitisation to various pollens was compared with 10-year counts of the same pollens. The ratios of sensitisation to various pollen groups, and the association between clinical sensitisation and pollen load, were investigated.Results:Grass pollen allergy was the leading cause of seasonal allergic rhinitis, followed by tree pollen allergy. In Ankara, the most common type of airborne tree pollen was salicacea; however, the commonest clinical tree pollen allergies were due to the betulaceae and fagaceae families.Conclusions:Higher concentrations of airborne pollens may not always result in a higher prevalence of clinical allergy to those pollens.


2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 817-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Vogelberg ◽  
Bernd Brüggenjürgen ◽  
Hartmut Richter ◽  
Marek Jutel

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 512-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. Bernstein ◽  
Bruce Prenner ◽  
Berrylin J. Ferguson ◽  
Jay Portnoy ◽  
William J. Wheeler ◽  
...  

Background Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistamine with a distinctive taste that may be objectionable to some patients. The primary objectives of this clinical trial were (1) to determine if a reformulated azelastine nasal spray (Astepro) with sucralose as a taste-masking agent provides comparable efficacy to the original formulation (Astelin) and (2) to evaluate dose–response relationships between groups. Methods Eight hundred thirty-five patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomized to six treatment groups: (1) original azelastine nasal spray, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (2) reformulated azelastine, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (3) placebo, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (4) original azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d., (5) reformulated, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.; and (6) placebo, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion. Results Original azelastine nasal spray and the reformulated spray produced comparable improvements in the TNSS at both dosages. There was a dose-related difference in TNSS comparing the 1- and 2-spray dosages. The percentage changes from baseline in the TNSS in the 2-sprays/nostril dosage groups were 27.9% (p < 0.001) with the reformulated nasal spray, 23.5% (p < 0.01) with the original formulation, and 15.4% with placebo. The incidence of bitter taste was 7% with the reformulated spray and 8% with the original at the 2-sprays/nostril dosage. Conclusion The results of this study showed efficacy both with original azelastine nasal spray and with the reformulated nasal spray and a clear dose–response difference between the 1- and 2-spray dosages.


2010 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 558-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danilo Di Bona ◽  
Antonella Plaia ◽  
Valeria Scafidi ◽  
Maria Stefania Leto-Barone ◽  
Gabriele Di Lorenzo

2012 ◽  
Vol 130 (5) ◽  
pp. 1097-1107.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danilo Di Bona ◽  
Antonella Plaia ◽  
Maria Stefania Leto-Barone ◽  
Simona La Piana ◽  
Gabriele Di Lorenzo

2022 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huan Chen ◽  
Guo-qing Gong ◽  
Mei Ding ◽  
Xiang Dong ◽  
Yuan-li Sun ◽  
...  

Purpose: Both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are effective in reducing symptoms and medication scores and inducing long-term efficacy in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). However, SLIT has been associated with poor patient adherence. This study investigates the factors impacting dropout rates from SLIT in house dust mite (HDM)-sensitized AR patients.Methods: A retrospective study was performed to analyze dropout rates and reasons in AR patients receiving Dermatophagoides farinae (Der f) SLIT with a follow-up period of 2 years.Results: A total of 719 HDM-sensitized AR patients received Der f-SLIT. Dropout rates increased with time and most occurred after 1 year of SLIT. By month 24, 654 (91%) patients had discontinued SLIT. The dropout rates by month 24 were 100, 90.1, and 91.1% in children &lt;5 years old, children aged 5–18 years old, and adults ≥ 18 years old, respectively. Combination with allergic asthma and mono- or multi-sensitization to other aeroallergens did not affect the dropout rates. The most common self-reported reasons for dropouts were refusal of continuation, dissatisfaction with the efficacy, transition to SCIT, and adverse effects. Refusal of continuation increased with age, whereas transition to SCIT decreased with age. Ninety-seven cases transitioned from SLIT to SCIT, and the transition rates increased with time. Comorbid allergic asthma did not affect the transition rates. However, multi-sensitization was associated with a slightly higher rate of transition to SCIT. The most common reason for the transition was dissatisfaction with the efficacy (54.6%), which was only reported by patients older than 5 years. For children who began SLIT at younger than 5 years old, the most common reason (81.2%) for transition was age reaching 5 years.Conclusions: HDM-SLIT has a very high dropout rate, which is mainly due to refusal of continuation and dissatisfaction with the efficacy. Transitioning from SLIT to SCIT may help keep these patients on AIT and thus increase adherence and long-term efficacy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document