Satisfaction of allergic patients treated with house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used for more than three decades as a therapeutic strategy for the treatment of allergic diseases. Studies have demonstrated its efficacy and safety, and numerous clinical trials have evaluated these parameters. In the present study, through patient perception, we investigated the patient satisfaction with the use of house dust mite SLIT treatment. "Satisfaction Scale for Patients Receiving Allergen Immunotherapy" (ESPIA) questionnaire, a standardized and validated instrument for clinical studies evaluating allergen immunotherapy, was applied to allergic patients (N = 136). Children and adults of both sexes who received SLIT for Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and/or Blomia tropicalis, according to the results of an immediate reading puncture test, were included. Data analysis showed that the perception of treatment effectiveness was 92%, performance improvement in the daily activities was 91%, a satisfactory cost-benefit balance was 84%, and the perception of general satisfaction was 97%. The results showed a high perception of satisfaction in allergic patients undergoing house dust mite SLIT.

Cost-effectiveness of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet for the treatment of allergic asthma in three Eastern European Countries.

Summary: Background.The SQ® house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet (ACARIZAX®, ALK-Abelló A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark) is an allergy immunotherapy tablet for people with allergic respiratory disease. This analysis aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet from the perspective of three Eastern European countries: Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Methods.A cost-utility model per country was developed, which compared the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet as add-on to pharmacotherapy with pharmacotherapy alone in patients with HDM allergic asthma (AA) over a five year time horizon. The effectiveness of the two interventions was based on the results from a large-scale randomised controlled trial. In the models, annual costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scores from the trial were extrapolated over a five year period, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken. Results.The SQ HDM SLIT-tablet is cost-effective in all three markets over the five year time horizon (ICERs of less than € 10,000 per additional QALY). Treatment with the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet improves patient outcomes, with QALY gains of 0.35, versus pharmacotherapy only. In all three countries, the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet also incurs increased costs compared to pharma-cotherapy treatment only. The sensitivity analysis identified utility values from the clinical trial as the main driver of the model results. Conclusion.The SQ HDM SLIT-tablet is a cost-effective treatment option for people with HDM AA in three different health care settings in Eastern Europe.

Hot Topics in Primary Care: Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Guide for Primary Care.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the only potential disease-modifying treatment for allergic disease, has been used for more than a century. Hankin et al showed significant reduction in pharmacy, outpatient, and inpatient resources in the 6 months following vs the 6 months preceding AIT in Medicaid-enrolled children with allergic rhinitis (AR). A 2013 analysis showed sustained cost reduction over 18 months in patients with AR treated with AIT compared with matched control subjects not treated with AIT.

Perceived compliance and barriers to care in sublingual immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: For allergy immunotherapy to be effective, patient compliance is critical. However, aqueous sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may be considered demanding for patients, requiring strict daily dosing and refilling of medication at regular intervals. In this study we sought to determine how patients perceive their own compliance with SLIT and identify barriers that may hinder compliance. METHODS: Using a retrospective review, 46 patients currently undergoing aqueous SLIT were identified to have less-than-excellent compliance based on frequency of clinic visits for SLIT refills. Twenty-eight of these patients completed a phone survey regarding symptom improvement, compliance, and barriers to care. In addition, 56 patients who withdrew from therapy before completion were polled about barriers to adherence. RESULTS: Of the 28 patients participating in the initial phone survey, 24 (86%) reported subjective improvement in symptoms on SLIT, despite less-than-excellent compliance. Nineteen (68%) of these patients perceived their own compliance to be excellent. Eighteen patients (65%) reported the inconvenience of scheduling and attending clinic appointments to be the main reason for noncompliance. The most common reasons for withdrawal from therapy were cost (27%), lack of effectiveness (25%), and difficulty with compliance (14%). CONCLUSION: The majority of aqueous SLIT patients perceived their compliance to be excellent, although, based on a previous study, these patients did not reach excellent compliance benchmarks. Inconvenience of clinic visits and cost of therapy were found to be the most common barriers to care. Despite what providers perceived as less-than-excellent compliance, 82% of patients reported symptom improvement with SLIT.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: where are we now?

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced in the 1980s as a safer option to subcutaneous immunotherapy and in the latest decade achieved significant advances. Its efficacy in allergic rhinitis is supported by a number of meta-analyses. The development of SLIT preparations in tablets to fulfill the requirements of regulatory agencies for quality of allergen extracts made available optimal products for grass-pollen-induced allergic rhinitis. Preparations of other allergens based on the same production methods are currently in progress. A notable outcome of SLIT, that is shared with subcutaneous immunotherapy, is the evident cost-effectiveness, showing significant cost savings as early as 3 months from starting the treatment, that become as high as 80% compared with drug treatment in the ensuing years.

Budget impact model of a 5-grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic disease with a substantial clinical and economic burden. This study estimated the potential budget impact (BI) associated with market entry of Sweet Vernal, Orchard, Perennial Rye, Timothy, and Kentucky Blue Grass Mixed Pollens Allergen Extract Tablet for Sublingual Use ('5-grass SLIT tablet') for patients aged 10-65 with grass pollen-induced AR. METHODS: A budget impact model was constructed to estimate the potential BI from a US payer perspective. The model calculated pharmacy, medical, and total (pharmacy + medical) costs per-member-per-month (PMPM) with and without market entry of the 5-grass SLIT tablet, considering a 3-year time horizon. The target population was determined using an epidemiological approach and existing literature. The treatment market shares without 5-grass SLIT tablet entry were derived from an analysis of de-identified insurance claims data. Pharmacy costs and medical utilization rates and costs were obtained from the claims data analysis and existing literature. One-way sensitivities were conducted for key model inputs. RESULTS: Using an illustrative example of a hypothetical health plan with one million members, the estimated target population of AR patients aged 10-65 was 26,320. On a PMPM basis, pharmacy costs increased by $0.36, $0.44, and $0.51, while total costs (after medical cost offsets) increased by $0.15, $0.18, and $0.22 in the first, second, and third years following entry of the 5-grass SLIT tablet, respectively. Results were most sensitive to changes in the compliance rate, treatment duration, and price. The BI will vary from the base case example when alternative, payer-specific inputs are used. CONCLUSIONS: Using base case inputs, use of the 5-grass SLIT tablet to treat grass pollen-induced AR increased the pharmacy budget for a hypothetical third-party payer. Higher pharmacy costs were partially offset by lower medical budget due to reduced resource use compared with existing treatments.

The Future of Sublingual Immunotherapy in the United States.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a safe and effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has approved three SLIT tablets for the treatment of AR and ARC in relation to pollen. Specifically, Grastek® and Oralair® are two formulations approved to treat patients suffering with AR/ARC to grass pollen, and Ragwitek™ is a formulation approved to treat patients suffering with AR/ARC to ragweed pollen. Although these approvals provide support for physicians to prescribe SLIT, barriers to prescribing SLIT still remain such as FDA approval for additional formulations, a standard dose and dosing schedule, and cost/insurance coverage. In order to further support the use of SLIT, research is currently being conducted to expand the indication for SLIT to other common comorbidities to AR/ARC. For example, allergic asthma, food allergies, and atopic dermatitis are other diseases which are being explored. The future of SLIT in the USA is unknown; however, education will be necessary for both providers and patients.

Comparative costs of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article describes the most recent comparative cost evaluations for subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Only one recent article compares the costs of SCIT and SLIT in America. No American publications assess direct and indirect costs together. Few studies outside of America assess these costs in detail. SUMMARY: Limited data exist on the direct and indirect costs of SCIT and SLIT in the United States. Studies suggest that SLIT may be more affordable when taking indirect costs into account. Costs for SLIT may be more contained if physicians are more selective in the number and volume of antigens utilized per patient. Recent Food and Drug Administration approval of select sublingual tablets in America is changing the payment methodology for SLIT in America. Limited data on the cost in America call for further American studies on this topic.

Selection of patients for sublingual versus subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Allergen immunotherapy is the sole treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases directed at the underlying mechanism. The two widely accepted administration routes are sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT). We reviewed how patients should best be selected for immunotherapy and how the optimal administration route can be defined. Before deciding SCIT or SLIT, appropriate selection of patients for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is mandatory. To be eligible for AIT, subjects must have a clear medical history of allergic disease, with exacerbation of symptoms on exposure to one or more allergens and a corresponding positive skin or in vitro test. Then the route of administration should be based on: published evidence of clinical and immunologic efficacy (which varies per allergic disease and per allergen); mono- or multi-allergen immunotherapy, for SLIT multi-allergen immunotherapy was not effective; safety: adverse events with SLIT are more frequent, but less severe; and, costs and patient preferences, closely related to adherence issues. All these are discussed in the article.

Allergy immunotherapy: what is the evidence for cost saving?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Given the widespread prevalence of allergic disease, its substantially associated clinical and economic burden, the unique disease-modifying benefits of allergy immunotherapy (AIT), and increased availability of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), a critical update of the evidence for AIT-related cost savings [for both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and SLIT] is particularly relevant and timely. The present article reviews the evidence for SCIT-related and SLIT-related cost savings derived from a systematic review of the published literature. RECENT FINDINGS: Examined were 24 publications pertaining to the health economics of AIT. Except for one early study comparing the costs of AIT to symptomatic drug treatment (SDT), the remainder provide compelling evidence for AIT cost savings (whether SCIT or SLIT) over SDT. Furthermore, of the six studies comparing cost outcomes of SLIT to SCIT, four reported cost savings favoring SLIT. SUMMARY: This review, spanning research from Southern Europe, Scandinavia, Northern Europe, North America, and the Czech Republic, encompasses a range of perennial and seasonal allergic conditions, including allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis with or without asthma, and rhinoconjunctivitis with or without allergic rhinitis due to house dust mite, grass or ragweed pollen, or a mixture of various allergens. All but one study compellingly demonstrate cost savings conferred by AIT over SDT.

Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis: an indirect analysis of efficacy, safety and cost.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The standard of preventive care for poorly controlled seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR) is subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with allergen extracts, administered in a physician's office. As an alternative to SCIT, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is now an option for patients with seasonal AR. Oralair, a SLIT tablet containing freeze-dried allergen extracts of five grasses [cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), meadow grass (Poa pratensis), rye grass (Lolium perenne), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and timothy grass (Phleum pratense)], and Grazax, a SLIT tablet containing a standardized extract of grass pollen allergen from timothy grass (P pratenase), are two such agents currently available in many countries. However, head-to-head comparative data are not available. In this study, an indirect comparison on efficacy, safety and cost was undertaken between Oralair, Grazax and SCIT. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials evaluating Oralair, Grazax or SCIT in patients with grass-induced seasonal AR. Using placebo as the common control, an indirect statistical comparison between treatments was performed using meta regression analysis with active drug as the primary independent variable. An economic analysis, which included both direct and indirect costs for the Canadian setting, was also undertaken. RESULTS: Overall, 20 placebo-controlled trials met the study inclusion criteria. The indirect analysis suggested improved efficacy with Oralair over SCIT [standardized mean difference (SMD) in AR symptom control = -0.21; P = 0.007] and Grazax (SMD = -0.18; P = 0.018). In addition, there were no significant differences in the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events between therapies. Oralair was associated with cost savings against year-round SCIT ($2471), seasonal SCIT ($948) and Grazax ($1168) during the first year of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Oralair has at least non-inferior efficacy and comparable safety against SCIT and Grazax at a lower annual cost.