ITULAZAX® versus Alutard SQ® in the treatment of allergic rhinitis induced by pollen from the birch homologous group: A cost-minimization modeling analysis from the Danish societal perspective.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disorder triggered by an allergic immune response to inhaled allergens. Birch pollen is the major allergenic tree pollen in parts of Europe. ITULAZAX® is a sublingual immunotherapy tablet for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe AR and/or conjunctivitis induced by pollen from the birch homologous group. The aim was to compare the costs of treating AR with ITULAZAX® versus subcutaneous ALUTARD SQ® Betula verrucosa (ALUTARD SQ®) from a Danish societal perspective. METHODS: A cost-minimization model was developed to capture costs of allergy immunotherapy (AIT), interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs) in three different care settings (general practice, allergy specialist, and hospital), and indirect costs arising from absenteeism and presenteeism. The cost-minimization analysis was conducted over a 3-year time horizon with costs reported in 2021 Danish Kroner (DKK) and Euros (EUR) based on the European Central Bank 365-day average exchange rate. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that the total cost of treatment over 3 years was estimated to be DKK 49,117 (EUR 6598) per patient with ALUTARD SQ®, compared with DKK 30,996 (EUR 4164) with ITULAZAX®, reflecting a cost saving of DKK 18,121 (EUR 2434) per patient with ITULAZAX® over 3 years. Over the 3-year time horizon, costs of AIT were predicted to increase by DKK 17,928 (EUR 2408) with ITULAZAX®, while costs of interactions with HCPs were predicted to decrease by DKK 22,528 (EUR 3027) versus ALUTARD SQ®, more than offsetting the increased cost of ITULAZAX®. CONCLUSIONS: Given the equivalent effectiveness of the two AIT products, and the cost savings with ITULAZAX® versus ALUTARD SQ® from a Danish societal perspective, ITULAZAX® should be considered as a cost-saving alternative to ALUTARD SQ® for the treatment of birch pollen-induced moderate-to-severe AR in adults.

Cost-minimization analysis of sublingual immunotherapy versus subcutaneous immunotherapy for house dust mite respiratory allergic disease in Denmark.

Objectives Currently, patients with persistent moderate-to-severe house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis despite use of symptom-relieving medication can be offered subcutaneously administered allergy immunotherapy (SQ SCIT; Alutard SQ) as standard care of treatment in Denmark. Recently, a HDM sublingually administered allergy immunotherapy tablet (SQ SLIT-tablet; ACARIZAX) has been developed for at-home treatment. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the costs related to treatment and administration of SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT. Methods Assuming equal efficacy between ther SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT, the cost-minimization analysis was the most appropriate for the comparison. According to guidelines and Summary of Product Characteristics, the treatment duration of SQ SLIT-tablet is 3 years and 3-5 years for SQ SCIT. The courses of treatment vary among patients and, therefore, the costs of treatment have been calculated for an average patient with HDM respiratory allergic disease (RAD) receiving either SQ SLIT-tablet or SQ SCIT. All costs associated with allergy immunotherapy were collected, i.e., cost of medication, administration and treatment setting, and discounted according to Danish guidelines. Comprehensive univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results The treatment costs for an average patient with HDM RAD are €3094 for SQ SLIT-tablet and €3799 for SQ SCIT; however, when adding indirect costs to the calculations the total costs of the treatments are €3697 and €6717 for SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT, respectively. Therefore, if 2500 patients with HDM RAD were treated with SQ SLIT-tablet instead of SQ SCIT, it would elicit a saving to the healthcare system of ∼€1.8 million. The conclusion was robust to any changes in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion With regards to the cost of treating Danish patients with HDM RAD, it is clearly cost-saving to treat patients with SQ SLIT-tablet compared to SQ SCIT.

Budget impact analysis of two immunotherapy products for treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis constitutes a large burden for society. Up to 20% of European and United States (US) populations suffer from respiratory allergies, including grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The majority of patients are treated with symptomatic medications; however, a large proportion remains uncontrolled despite use of such treatments. Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment documented to target the underlying cause of the disease, leading to a sustained effect after completion of treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the economic consequences of treating patients suffering from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with either a grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) or subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). METHODS: A budget impact analysis was applied comparing SQ-standardized grass AIT (Grazax(®); Phleum pratense, 75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU; ALK, Denmark) with SCIT (Alutard(®); P. pratense, 100,000 SQ-U/mL; ALK, Denmark). Budget impact analysis included health care utilization measured in physical units based on systematic literature reviews, guidelines, and expert opinions, as well as valuation in unit costs based on drug tariffs, physician fees, and wage statistics. Budget impact analysis was conducted from a Danish health care perspective. RESULTS: Treating patients suffering from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with grass AIT instead of grass SCIT resulted in a total reduction in treatment costs of €1291 per patient during a treatment course. This cost saving implies that approximately 40% more patients could be treated with grass AIT per year without influencing the cost of treatment. CONCLUSION: Budget impact analysis showed that grass AIT is a cost-saving alternative to SCIT when treating patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Symptoms after ingestion of pig whipworm Trichuris suis eggs in a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial.

UNLABELLED: Symptoms after human infection with the helminth Trichuris suis have not previously been described. Exposure to helminths has been suggested as immune therapy against allergy and autoimmune diseases. We randomized adults with allergic rhinitis to ingest a dose of 2500 T. suis eggs or placebo every 21 days for 168 days (total 8 doses) in a double-blind clinical trial. In a previous publication, we reported a lack of efficacy and a high prevalence of adverse gastrointestinal reactions. The aim of the present study was to present a detailed description of the adverse event data and post-hoc analyses of gastrointestinal reactions. Adverse events and severity (mild, moderate, severe) were recorded daily by subjects, classified by organ using MedDRA 10.0, and event rates compared between subjects on T. suis treatment vs. subjects on placebo. T. suis-specific serum IgG antibodies were measured by a fluoroenzymeimmunoassay (Phadia ApS). During 163 days complete follow-up, subjects ingesting T. suis eggs (N = 49) had a three to 19-fold higher rate of events (median duration, 2 days) with gastrointestinal reactions (moderate to severe flatulence, diarrhea, and upper abdominal pain) compared with placebo subjects (N = 47). The highest incidence of affected subjects was seen from the first few days and until day 42 (3(rd) dose): 63% vs. 29% for placebo; day 163: 76% vs. 49% for placebo. Seroprevalences increased concurrently in the T. suis group: Day 59, 50%; day 90, 91%; day 170, 93%. The combined duration of episodes with onset before day 42 was ≤ 14 days in 80% of affected subjects. Age, gender, total IgE, and recent intestinal symptoms at baseline did not predict gastrointestinal side effects. In conclusion, during the first 2 months, repeated ingestions of 2500 T. suis eggs caused frequent gastrointestinal reactions lasting up to 14 days, whereas 4 months further treatment mainly provoked a subclinical stimulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University hospital Medical Information Network trial registry Reg. no. R000001298, Trial ID UMIN000001070.

Trichuris suis ova therapy for allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Parasitic helminth infections can protect against allergic airway inflammation in experimental models and have been associated with a reduced risk of atopy and a reduced course of asthma in some observational studies. Although no clinical evidence exists to support the use of helminth therapy for allergic disease, the helminth Trichuris suis has demonstrated efficacy in treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine efficacy of helminth therapy for allergic rhinitis. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial in which 100 subjects age 18 to 65 years with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to ingest a total of 8 doses with 2500 live T suis ova or placebo with an interval of 21 days. The primary outcome was a change in mean daily total symptom score for runny, itchy, sneezing nose (maximum change, 9.0) or in percentage of well days during the grass pollen season. RESULTS: Treatment with T suis ova (N = 49) compared with placebo (N = 47) caused transient diarrhea peaking at day 41 in 33% of participants (placebo, 2%), and increased eosinophil counts (P < .001) and T suis-specific IgE (P < .05), IgG (P < .001), IgG(4) (P < .003), and IgA (P < .001), whereas there was no significant change in symptom scores (0.0; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4; P = .87), well days (3%; 95% CI, -9% to 14%; P = .63), total histamine (P = .44), grass-specific IgE (P = .76), or diameter of wheal reaction on skin prick testing with grass (P = .85) or 9 other allergens. CONCLUSION: Repeated treatment with the helminth T suis induced a substantial clinical and immunologic response as evidence of infection, but had no therapeutic effect on allergic rhinitis.

[Zone therapy and asthma]. / Zoneterapi og asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with asthma seek alternative or adjunctive therapies. One such modality is reflexology. Our aim was to examine the popular claim that reflexology treatment benefits bronchial asthma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten weeks of either active or simulated (placebo) reflexology were compared in an otherwise blind, controlled trial of 40 patients with asthma. RESULTS: Objective lung function tests did not change. Subjective scores and bronchial sensitivity to histamine improved on both regimens, but no differences were found in the groups receiving active or placebo reflexology. However, a trend in favour of reflexology became significant when a supplementary analysis of symptom diaries was carried out. At the same time a significant pattern compatible with subconscious un-blinding was found. DISCUSSION: We found no evidence that reflexology has a specific effect on asthma beyond a placebo influence.