English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose Real-world evidence (RWE) with regard to allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) adherence is increasingly available. Economic modelling has already shown AIT to be cost-effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis compared with symptomatic treatment. However, analyzing sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT) immunotherapeutic approaches based on RWE adherence data are not available for Germany. This analysis outlines the cost-effectiveness of SCIT compared with SLIT as well as a symptomatic treatment modality on the basis of recent RWE adherence data. Methods A Markov model, with predefined disease stages and a time period of 9 years, was adapted for this analysis. A 6-grass subcutaneous allergoid SCIT preparation and a 5-grass pollen SLIT tablet was employed as AIT administrations. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on symptom scores and used as the effectiveness variable. Total costs and cost effectiveness of SCIT, SLIT and symptomatic treatment (ST) were calculated. Model uncertainties were estimated by means of additional sensitivity analyses. Applied discount rate was 3%. Results Both SCIT and SLIT preparations proved superior compared to symptomatic treatment with regard to effectiveness. Although more expensive, AIT also proved to be cost-effective. A direct comparison of SCIT (Allergovit®) and SLIT (Oralair®) showed lower total costs for SCIT treatment over the study period of 9 years (SCIT 1779 € versus SLIT 2438 €) and improved effectiveness (SCIT 7.17 QALYs versus SLIT 7.11 QALYs). Conclusion AIT represents a cost-effective treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis compared with symptomatic treatment. SCIT appeared to be dominant and cost-effective, due in particular to higher patient adherence and lower drug costs.

Real world effectiveness and cost consequences of grass pollen SCIT compared with SLIT and symptomatic treatment