M Asaria1, S Dhami2, R van Ree3, R Gerth van Wijk4, A Muraro5, G Roberts6,7, A Sheikh8. 1. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK. 2. Evidence-Based Health Care Ltd, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Departments of Experimental Immunology and of Otorhinolaryngology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Food Allergy Referral Centre Veneto Region, Department of Women and Child Health, Padua General University Hospital, Padua, Italy. 6. The David Hide Asthma and Allergy Research Centre, St Mary's Hospital, Newport Isle of Wight, NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 7. University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 8. Asthma UK, Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. METHODS: We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.
BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. METHODS: We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.
Authors: Oliver Pfaar; Tobias Ankermann; Matthias Augustin; Petra Bubel; Sebastian Böing; Randolf Brehler; Peter A Eng; Peter J Fischer; Michael Gerstlauer; Eckard Hamelmann; Thilo Jakob; Jörg Kleine-Tebbe; Matthias Volkmar Kopp; Susanne Lau; Norbert Mülleneisen; Christoph Müller; Katja Nemat; Wolfgang Pfützner; Joachim Saloga; Klaus Strömer; Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier; Antje Schuster; Gunter Johannes Sturm; Christian Taube; Zsolt Szépfalusi; Christian Vogelberg; Martin Wagenmann; Wolfgang Wehrmann; Thomas Werfel; Stefan Wöhrl; Margitta Worm; Bettina Wedi; Susanne Kaul; Vera Mahler; Anja Schwalfenberg Journal: Allergol Select Date: 2022-09-06
Authors: P W Hellings; B Pugin; G Mariën; C Bachert; C Breynaert; D M Bullens; J L Ceuppens; G Clement; T Cox; D Ebo; P Gevaert; S Halewyck; V Hox; K Ladha; R Jacobs; P Rombaux; R Schrijvers; K Speleman; X Van der Brempt; L Van Gerven; O Vanderveken; B Verhaeghe; K Vierstraete; S Vlaminck; J-B Watelet; J Bousquet; S F Seys Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 5.871
Authors: Ludger Klimek; Oliver Pfaar; Margitta Worm; Karl-Christian Bergmann; Thomas Bieber; Roland Buhl; Jeroen Buters; Ulf Darsow; Thomas Keil; Jörg Kleine-Tebbe; Susanne Lau; Marcus Maurer; Hans Merk; Ralph Mösges; Joachim Saloga; Petra Staubach; Dagmar Poethig; Klaus Rabe; Uta Rabe; Claus Vogelmeier; Tilo Biedermann; Kirsten Jung; Wolfgang Schlenter; Johannes Ring; Adam Chaker; Wolfgang Wehrmann; Sven Becker; Norbert Mülleneisen; Katja Nemat; Wolfgang Czech; Holger Wrede; Randolf Brehler; Thomas Fuchs; Peter-Valentin Tomazic; Werner Aberer; Antje Fink-Wagner; Friedrich Horak; Stefan Wöhrl; Verena Niederberger-Leppin; Isabella Pali-Schöll; Wolfgang Pohl; Regina Roller-Wirnsberger; Otto Spranger; Rudolf Valenta; Mübecell Akdis; Cezmi Akdis; Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber; Marek Jutel; Paolo Matricardi; François Spertini; Nikolai Khaltaev; Jean-Pierre Michel; Laurent Nicod; Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier; Eckard Hamelmann; Thilo Jakob; Thomas Werfel; Martin Wagenmann; Christian Taube; Jean Bousquet; Torsten Zuberbier; Christian Vogelberg; Michael Gerstlauer Journal: Allergo J Date: 2020-05-08
Authors: Ludger Klimek; Marek Jutel; Cezmi Akdis; Jean Bousquet; Mübeccel Akdis; Claus Bachert; Ioana Agache; Ignacio Ansotegui; Anna Bedbrook; Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich; Giorgio W Canonica; Tomas Chivato; Alvaro A Cruz; Wienia Czarlewski; Stefano Del Giacco; Hui Du; Joao A Fonseca; Yadong Gao; Tari Haahtela; Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber; Juan-Carlos Ivancevich; Nikolai Khaltaev; Edward F Knol; Piotr Kuna; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Erik Melen; Joaquim Mullol; Robert Naclerio; Ken Ohta; Yoshitaka Okamoto; Liam O'Mahony; Gabrielle L Onorato; Nikos G Papadopoulos; Ruby Pawankar; Oliver Pfaar; Boleslaw Samolinski; Jurgen Schwarze; Sanna Toppila-Salmi; Mohamed H Shamji; Maria Teresa Ventura; Arunas Valiulis; Arzu Yorgancioglu; Paolo Matricardi; Torsten Zuberbier Journal: Allergy Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 14.710
Authors: Heimo Breiteneder; Zuzana Diamant; Thomas Eiwegger; Wytske J Fokkens; Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann; Kari Nadeau; Robyn E O'Hehir; Liam O'Mahony; Oliver Pfaar; Maria J Torres; De Yun Wang; Luo Zhang; Cezmi A Akdis Journal: Allergy Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 13.146