Mike Tankersley1,2, Tonya Winders3,4, Mark Aagren5, Henrik Brandi5, Mikkel Hasse Pedersen6, Anne Sofie Ledgaard Loftager6, Mette Bøgelund6. 1. Departments of Medicine, Pediatrics and Otolaryngology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 2. The Tankersley Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA. 3. Allergy & Asthma Network, Vienna, VA, USA. 4. Global Allergy & Airways Patient Platform, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Global Market Access & Public Affairs, ALK, Hørsholm, Denmark. 6. Incentive Denmark, Holte, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with allergic rhinitis (AR) who are not controlled on conventional therapy can be treated using allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as tablets, injections or drops. In the US, the use of sublingual immunotherapy as tablets (SLIT-tablets) is limited in comparison to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). OBJECTIVE: This study investigated patients' preference for SLIT-tablets vs monthly or weekly SCIT from a US patient perspective. METHODS: We carried out a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate-to-severe AR were included if they had not previously or were not currently receiving AIT. Three attributes were included in the design: the mode and frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co-payment. RESULTS: A total of 724 adults with AR and 665 caregivers of children with AR were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for SLIT-tablets compared with both weekly and monthly injections and for less risk of anaphylactic shock. Caregivers were more risk-averse than adults when choosing their treatment, and the younger the child, the more risk-averse the caregiver. The preference for SLIT-tablets was found for both monoallergic and polyallergic adults and caregivers of monoallergic and polyallergic children. Respondents not wanting AIT for free were more risk-averse than those indicating that they wanted AIT for free. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SLIT-tablets is the preferred route of administration for AIT among adults and caregivers of children with AR.
BACKGROUND: People with allergic rhinitis (AR) who are not controlled on conventional therapy can be treated using allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as tablets, injections or drops. In the US, the use of sublingual immunotherapy as tablets (SLIT-tablets) is limited in comparison to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). OBJECTIVE: This study investigated patients' preference for SLIT-tablets vs monthly or weekly SCIT from a US patient perspective. METHODS: We carried out a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate-to-severe AR were included if they had not previously or were not currently receiving AIT. Three attributes were included in the design: the mode and frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co-payment. RESULTS: A total of 724 adults with AR and 665 caregivers of children with AR were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for SLIT-tablets compared with both weekly and monthly injections and for less risk of anaphylactic shock. Caregivers were more risk-averse than adults when choosing their treatment, and the younger the child, the more risk-averse the caregiver. The preference for SLIT-tablets was found for both monoallergic and polyallergic adults and caregivers of monoallergic and polyallergic children. Respondents not wanting AIT for free were more risk-averse than those indicating that they wanted AIT for free. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SLIT-tablets is the preferred route of administration for AIT among adults and caregivers of children with AR.
Authors: Linda Cox; Harold Nelson; Richard Lockey; Christopher Calabria; Thomas Chacko; Ira Finegold; Michael Nelson; Richard Weber; David I Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; David A Khan; David M Lang; Richard A Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Jay M Portnoy; Christopher Randolph; Diane E Schuller; Sheldon L Spector; Stephen Tilles; Dana Wallace Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: J Bousquet; N Khaltaev; A A Cruz; J Denburg; W J Fokkens; A Togias; T Zuberbier; C E Baena-Cagnani; G W Canonica; C van Weel; I Agache; N Aït-Khaled; C Bachert; M S Blaiss; S Bonini; L-P Boulet; P-J Bousquet; P Camargos; K-H Carlsen; Y Chen; A Custovic; R Dahl; P Demoly; H Douagui; S R Durham; R Gerth van Wijk; O Kalayci; M A Kaliner; Y-Y Kim; M L Kowalski; P Kuna; L T T Le; C Lemiere; J Li; R F Lockey; S Mavale-Manuel; E O Meltzer; Y Mohammad; J Mullol; R Naclerio; R E O'Hehir; K Ohta; S Ouedraogo; S Palkonen; N Papadopoulos; G Passalacqua; R Pawankar; T A Popov; K F Rabe; J Rosado-Pinto; G K Scadding; F E R Simons; E Toskala; E Valovirta; P van Cauwenberge; D-Y Wang; M Wickman; B P Yawn; A Yorgancioglu; O M Yusuf; H Zar; I Annesi-Maesano; E D Bateman; A Ben Kheder; D A Boakye; J Bouchard; P Burney; W W Busse; M Chan-Yeung; N H Chavannes; A Chuchalin; W K Dolen; R Emuzyte; L Grouse; M Humbert; C Jackson; S L Johnston; P K Keith; J P Kemp; J-M Klossek; D Larenas-Linnemann; B Lipworth; J-L Malo; G D Marshall; C Naspitz; K Nekam; B Niggemann; E Nizankowska-Mogilnicka; Y Okamoto; M P Orru; P Potter; D Price; S W Stoloff; O Vandenplas; G Viegi; D Williams Journal: Allergy Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: Michael S Blaiss; Gary C Steven; Bruce Bender; Don A Bukstein; Eli O Meltzer; Tonya Winders Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Claus Bachert; Mark Larché; Sergio Bonini; Giorgio Walter Canonica; Thomas Kündig; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Dennis Ledford; Hugo Neffen; Ruby Pawankar; Giovanni Passalacqua Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.084