A primer on cost-effectiveness in the allergy clinic

The Art of Clinical Negotiation

The art of clinical negotiation is an important, yet underappreciated aspect of medicine. Key components of negotiation include the need to consider principles over personalities; to explore all options before deciding on the best course; to realize that, if consensus cannot be achieved, then compromise may still be possible; to work from evidence to incorporate contextual factors; and to stay evidence based. These principles can be helpful in many settings, including contract negotiation, drug pricing, and research. Negotiating the balance between patient safety and efficient research methodology is central to discussions with institutional review boards and public and private researchers. When guidelines are developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, shared decision making and negotiation of treatment plans can be seamlessly incorporated into patient conversations for conditional recommendations, and negotiation skills may facilitate clinical adoption of strong recommendation as well.

Food allergy yardstick: Where does omalizumab fit?

Food allergy management has greatly evolved in the last several years, moving from passive approaches, such as strict food allergen avoidance, to more active treatments, including regulatory approval of the first specifically indicated immunotherapy product (for peanut) in 2020. In 2024, a second therapy, omalizumab, received regulatory approval for the treatment of 1 or more IgE-mediated food allergies, providing clinicians with multiple treatment options to offer patients and families. With this expanded armamentarium of food allergy treatment options, the practicing clinician requires detailed knowledge of benefits and risks of omalizumab, how omalizumab fits into the management landscape, and how to use shared decision-making to optimize therapy. This yardstick aims to provide the clinician with a review of data leading to omalizumab's food allergy indication and an evidence-based expert opinion approach regarding on how best to use this and other therapies available to optimize patient management.

Evolving Food Allergy Clinical Trials to Become More Patient-Centered

The current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) paradigm may not fully capture important patient-centered outcomes or measure a primary outcome that is truly meaningful to patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized tools measuring the patient's experience in food allergy clinical trials, which can help support shared decision-making (SDM) and further our understanding of treatment impact. Food allergy PROMs include quality of life (QoL), health state utility (HSU), severity, and self-efficacy measures. Currently, FDA registration trials for product approval only consider a fixed increase in allergen threshold from pre-to-post intervention as a primary outcome (vs a more flexible "X-fold" increase not accounting for an upper and lower specific threshold), though many use QoL as a secondary outcome for patient-centered assessment of treatment impact. Currently used QoL PROMs were not designed to measure change on therapy nor measure HSU (eg, quantitative risk a patient may be willing to take to improve their current health), which can be used to determine therapy value. Although the current paradigm for primary and secondary outcomes in food allergy clinical trials was appropriate at the early stages of food allergy therapy development when conceived in the late 2000s and early 2010s, in the 2020s, these outcome choices risk being stagnant and outdated. As such, the current paradigm for food allergy outcomes should evolve to incorporate more patient-centered primary outcome measures that patient data indicate are meaningful, so outcomes more realistically reflect a therapy's impact. This evolution will better support SDM discussions as patients consider their therapy options and can inform new product development.

To the ER? Can Patients Treat Their Anaphylaxis at Home?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss if all patients who use self-injectable epinephrine outside the hospital setting require immediate emergency care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prior to 2023, anaphylaxis management guidance universally recommended that patients who use self-injectable epinephrine outside of the hospital or clinic setting immediately activate emergency medical services and seek further care. Additional food-induced anaphylaxis management recommendations specified that all patients always carry 2 auto-injector devices and give a second dose of epinephrine if there was not immediate response within 5 min of injection. Patients presenting for emergency care after epinephrine are often observed for up to 4-6 h afterwards, even when completely asymptomatic. These management steps have lacked evidence for improving outcomes, and universal implementation of these approaches is not cost-effective as guidance for food allergic patients. Epinephrine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics suggest that peak physiologic response is more likely to occur closer to 15 min than before 5 min, that few patients require a second dose of epinephrine as most stabilize within 15 min of use, that 60 min of observation after a patient stabilizes after epinephrine use may be adequate as patients infrequently have further sequelae, and that not everyone needs to carry 2 epinephrine auto-injectors on their person at all times. The most recent anaphylaxis practice parameter promotes a contextualized approach to these management questions, outlining the option for watchful waiting to gauge response to epinephrine before seeking emergency care, which has been proven as a more cost-effective management strategy. The recent updated anaphylaxis care guidelines support the evolution of anaphylaxis care, in that universal, immediate activation of emergency services is not required for using self-injectable epinephrine outside the hospital setting.

Patient-Centered Practice Guidelines: GRADEing Evidence to Incorporate Certainty, Balance Between Benefits and Harms, Equity, Feasibility, and Cost-Effectiveness

The practice of medicine in recent years has emphasized the use of evidence-based clinical guidelines to help inform treatment decisions. Since its development in 2004, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach has offered a systematic process for reviewing and summarizing the certainty of evidence found in the medical literature regarding various treatment options. To develop truly patient-centered care guidelines, this appraisal of the certainty of evidence must be combined with an understanding of the balance between benefits and harms, patient preferences, equity, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and policy implications. This review examines each of these domains in detail, exploring the process and benefits of developing relevant, patient-focused guidelines directly applicable to the practice of modern medicine.

A practical guide for implementing omalizumab therapy for food allergy

The recent approval of omalizumab for the treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy is an important step forward for the millions of food allergy patients in the United States. Through the depletion of circulating IgE and the subsequent reduction of FcεR1 on key effector cells, patients increase their tolerance to food allergens. However, omalizumab does not permit patients to eat foods that they are allergic to with impunity. Rather, it protects them from most accidental exposures. In addition, omalizumab does not cure food allergy and has not demonstrated true immunomodulation. Thus, omalizumab might be a lifelong therapy for some patients. Furthermore, there are many important questions and issues surrounding the appropriate administration of omalizumab to treat food allergy, which we discuss. Managing treatment of patients with disease that falls outside the dosing range, assessing treatment response or nonresponse, addressing its appropriateness for patients older than 55, and determining whether immunotherapy plus omalizumab provides any advantage over omalizumab alone all need to be examined. Identifying appropriate patients for this therapy is critical given the cost of biologics. Indeed, not all food allergy patients are good candidates for this therapy. Also, when and how to stop omalizumab therapy in patients who may have outgrown their food allergy needs to be elucidated. Thus, although this therapy provides a good option for patients with food allergies, much information is needed to determine how best to use this therapy. Despite many unanswered questions and issues, we provide clinicians with some practical guidance on implementing this therapy in their patients.

Correlation between LTC4S -444 A>C polymorphism and susceptibility to asthma: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

This study aims to uncover the potential correlation between LTC4S -444 A>C polymorphism and susceptibility to asthma.

Methods

Literatures reporting the correlation between LTC4S -444 A>C polymorphism and susceptibility to asthma published before 1st June, 2019 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Wanfang and CNKI. Eligible literatures were enrolled and their data were extracted. OR and its 95% CI were calculated for assessing the correlation between LTC4S -444 A>C polymorphism and susceptibility to asthma. The included data were weighted by an inverse variance and then analyzed by a fixed or random effects model. Heterogeneity test and sensitivity analysis were performed on the enrolled reports. STATA12.1 and TSA (trial sequential analysis) were utilized for analyses.

Value-Based, Cost-Effective Care: The Role of the Allergist-Immunologist

Asthma and allergic disease impact millions of patients and are associated with high costs. Up to 30% of all medical care involves wasted spending. Across the spectrum of care provided by the allergist-immunologist, there are opportunities to improve value and reduce medical waste. Several examples highlight this reality. Evidence suggests that most patients may receive cost-effective care in the management of chronic spontaneous urticaria without the need for laboratory testing. For patients with asthma, although a single maintenance and reliever therapy approach may be cost-effective, insurance-mandated therapy changes are not, and may harm patients. Biologics may be very effective in improving asthma control but are too expensive for this indication-as demonstrated by cost-effectiveness analyses and highlighted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review, which concluded that the value-based price for asthma biologics ranges between $6500 and 14,3000 per year. Early introduction may prevent food allergy, but screening before first introduction is neither necessary nor cost-effective, although early salvage food oral immunotherapy may result in improved quality of life and cost savings. Evidence does not support the presence of allergic disease as a risk factor for anaphylaxis to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and risk-stratified vaccination approaches do not appear cost-effective. Allergen immunotherapy is a very cost-effective treatment option. The practice of allergy-immunology has continued to evolve in recent years and can provide a leading example of high-value practice.

Mapping the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire Parent Form onto the Short-Form Six-Dimensions version 2

BACKGROUND

The Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire Parent Form (FAQLQ-PF) is the most widely used quality of life questionnaire in food allergy. The objective of this study was to develop a mapping algorithm to convert FAQLQ-PF scores into health state utilities.

METHODS

The Short-Form Six-Dimensions version 2 (SF-6Dv2) and FAQLQ-PF questionnaires were collected from an academic center oral immunotherapy referral cohort. Utility estimates were derived from the SF-6Dv2 using the food allergy preference set. Candidate mapping algorithm models were developed using seven regression methods starting from either the total average score, the average scores of each of the three domains or the individual item scores of FAQLQ-PF. The process was repeated twice, including only section A, common to all age groups, or including all age-applicable sections of the FAQLQ-PF. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) were used to select the best fitting model. An independent cohort from a previous national online survey was used for external validation.

RESULTS

In the index cohort, 1000 of 1257 respondents had completed both questionnaires. The lowest MAE (0.0791) and RMSE (0.1020) were recorded when entering individual item scores in a categorical regression model. The model including only FAQLQ-PF section A was found to be most consistent when tested in the external validation cohort (n = 248) (MAE of 0.0898).

CONCLUSION

The FAQLQ-PF was mapped onto SF-6Dv2 utilities with good predictive accuracy in two independent cohorts. This will enable calculation of health utility for cost-effectiveness analyses in food allergy.

Review: A Practical Guide to Understanding Cost-effectiveness Analyses

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a way to understand the value of a health care intervention in terms of assessing the money spent to produce beneficial outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used by various stakeholders for such purposes because health care resources and financing may be scarce, depending on the economy, and certain interventions may be costly to produce such outcomes compared with other options. These analyses are built on well-researched and robust inputs for costs and outcomes and may be modeled using a technique called Markov chain models, which allow transitions among various health states (eg, alive, dead, outgrow allergy, allergy relapses) relative to the condition of interest to reflect a base-case scenario. Then, the margins of the inputs are explored for a sensitivity analysis of potential findings. These analyses should be investigated from multiple perspectives (eg, society, health care payer). Limitations of the analysis should be clearly stated. Although such models are an informative way to explore a situation and can be performed without additional direct patient intervention, a weakness of the approach is that this may overlook individual patient nuances. Cost-effectiveness analyses are important policy tools to show, on average, an optimal way to improve value in population health.

The Importance of a Timely Second Dose of the 2021 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Depends on the Protection Afforded by a First Dose and Subsequent Risk of Anaphylaxis

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents our greatest hope to combat the devastating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Amid ongoing global vaccination efforts, rare cases of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have received significant attention. Although the exact nature of these reactions may be heterogeneous, various approaches exist to engage with patients, communities, public health departments, primary care providers, and other clinicians in a multidisciplinary approach to advance population health. Whereas it is optimal for patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination as outlined in emergency use authorizations, second-dose deferral of mRNA vaccines may be a consideration within a shared decision-making paradigm of care in select circumstances characterized by high durable first-vaccine-dose protection and significant elevations of vaccine anaphylaxis risk. Still, the durability of protection afforded by a single dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is uncertain, and alternative approaches to complete vaccination, including precautionary use of a COVID-19 viral vector vaccine, also remain patient-preference-sensitive options. There is an urgent need to define correlates of COVID-19 immunity and the level of longer-term protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccination.

Food allergy: how expensive are they?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergy remains a disease of global public health significance well known to impact social, emotional, and financial well being. This review aims to summarize the existing literature focused on the direct, indirect, and intangible costs of food allergy at the household and healthcare system levels, and begin to discuss how emerging treatment and prevention strategies may be leveraged to comprehensively care for the food allergic population with the efficient use of health resources.

RECENT FINDINGS

Food allergy imposes significant costs to multiple stakeholders and largely impact families at the household level. Recent studies elucidate the need to balance the household management of food allergy with the efficient use of health resources. Overall, it remains critical that safe foods and medications remain affordable while further exploring the cost-effectiveness of early introduction, emerging food allergy therapies, and the wider use of stock epinephrine to adequately meet the public health needs of the food-allergic community.

SUMMARY

Better understanding how the cost of food allergy impacts populations will help to inform more progressive policies aimed at lessening socioeconomic disparities and ultimately improve quality of life for children and adults with food allergies.

Addressing risk management difficulties in children with food allergies

Risk is a concept inherent in every medical procedure. It can be defined as the probability of an adverse event in a defined population over a specified period of time. In the frame of food allergy management, it might be related to a diagnostic procedure, a treatment, or the consumption of foods. The risk of an adverse event can also be augmented by individual factors. This rostrum article discusses various aspects faced by children with food allergies in the light of risk, and their practical implications. Identifying personal risks for severe reaction, such as unstable asthma, and correcting them whenever possible also contribute to a reduction of the risk inherent to food allergy. Among the facets discussed, oral food challenges (OFC) are the most common diagnostic procedures implying an inherent risk. The risk of OFCs can be minimized by correct indication and timing of the test, a safe setting, as well as by ensuring that the patient is otherwise well without potential stressor potentially increasing the risk of a more severe reaction. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been studied as a potential treatment for increasing the threshold dose for reaction, and thus reducing the risk of accidental reaction. Nevertheless, the procedure is not devoid of risk as the patients may and do often react during the course of the procedure. Ingestion of trace amounts in processed foods, mainly in community settings such as restaurants, schools, or day care, represents a potential risk of reactions, although for a minority of patients. Precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) is a widespread strategy to reduce the potential risk of reactions due to traces. However, PAL is currently inefficient due to inconsistent labeling, also not indicating a clear maximum amount possibly present in the manufactured food. Finally, cost-effectiveness needs to be considered in risk management, as many risk reduction procedures are clearly not cost-effective.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Preschool Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in the Real-World Setting

BACKGROUND

Across North America, 1.4% to 4.5% of children and families live with peanut allergy (PA). Preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) has been shown to be safe and effective in the real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost effectiveness of preschool POIT in North America.

METHODS

Markov cohort analyses and microsimulation was used to evaluate simulated preschool children with PA over an 80-year time horizon. Models incorporated the natural history of PA, comparing children treated with preschool POIT with those not receiving immunotherapy. Costs were expressed in U.S. and Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

A preschool POIT strategy was associated with cost savings while improving quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), dominating a nonimmunotherapy approach. Over the model horizon, when all costs (and effectiveness) of PA were included from a societal perspective, a POIT versus a non-POIT approach cost $82,514 (18.51 QALY) versus $84,367 (17.75 QALY) in the United States, and $40,111 (18.83 QALY) versus $53,848 (18.26 QALY) in Canada. In microsimulations, systemic reactions to POIT were less frequent than anaphylaxis from accidental exposure without POIT (United States: 3.59, SD 3.49 vs 19.53, SD 11.71; Canada: 3.63, SD 3.54 vs 4.56, SD 3.30), epinephrine use was reduced with POIT (United States: 5.85, SD 5.73 vs 9.76, SD 5.85; Canada: 0.34, SD 0.36 vs 0.53, SD 0.38), and fatalities were rare but lower in the POIT strategy (United States: 0.00005, SD 0.0071 vs 0.00015, SD 0.012; Canada: 0.00005, SD 0.0071 vs 0.00009, SD 0.0095).

CONCLUSIONS

Preschool POIT in a real-world setting improved health and economic outcomes in the United States and Canada.

What the COVID-19 Pandemic Can Teach Us About Resource Stewardship and Quality in Health Care

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has forever changed how we view health care service delivery. Although there are undoubtedly some unintended consequences that will result from current health care service reallocation, it provides a unique opportunity to consider how to deliver quality care currently, and after the pandemic. In the context of lessons learned, moving forward some of what was previously routine could remain reserved for more exceptional circumstances. To determine what is "routine," what is "essential," and what is "exceptional," it is necessary to view medical decisions within the paradigm of high-quality care. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of the dimensions of quality is based on whether the care is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. This type of stewardship has been applied to many interventions already deemed unnecessary by organizations such as the Choosing Wisely initiative, but the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic provides a lens from which to consider other aspects of care. The following will provide examples from Allergy/Immunology that outline how we can reconsider what quality means in the post-coronavirus disease health care system.

An update on international practice variation in peanut introduction: conundrums, controversies, and a new direction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Introduction of peanut during the first year of life is associated with an 81% relative risk reduction of developing peanut allergy in infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both. However, significant international variation exists in risk stratification prior to peanut introduction.

RECENT FINDINGS

A policy-level screening approach, such as the one in the United States, is not practical and is associated with higher costs and more cases of peanut allergy over time, in contrast to international models that recommend universal early introduction without prescreening. In Australia, population-level efforts to introduce peanut early without screening have demonstrated high rates of peanut introduction before 12 months of age and low rates of severe allergic reactions. In contrast, screening prior to peanut introduction in the United States is associated with 'screening creep' - the tendency of clinicians to test populations where screening is not recommended.

SUMMARY

Early peanut introduction can reduce the risk of developing food allergy and is more effective without a risk-based screening approach. In some circumstances, shared clinical decision-making can facilitate food allergy prevention in a manner consistent with family values and preferences.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Allergic Diseases

The introduction of specific humanized monoclonal antibodies over the past 20 years has dramatically changed the treatment of allergic diseases. At present, 5 mAbs are licensed for treating moderate to severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Given the high costs of biologics, understanding their cost-effectiveness is critical. As new biologics are developed and new indications are approved for existing biologics, the use of biologics for allergic diseases will increase. Conducting cost-effectiveness evaluations in parallel to efficacy and effectiveness trials will help patients, providers, payers, and policymakers in decision making.

Clinician Wellness During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Extraordinary Times and Unusual Challenges for the Allergist/Immunologist

The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused sudden and dramatic societal changes. The allergy/immunology community has quickly responded by mobilizing practice adjustments and embracing new paradigms of care to protect patients and staff from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 exposure. Social distancing is key to slowing contagion but adds to complexity of care and increases isolation and anxiety. Uncertainty exists across a new COVID-19 reality, and clinician well-being may be an underappreciated priority. Wellness incorporates mental, physical, and spiritual health to protect against burnout, which impairs both coping and caregiving abilities. Understanding the stressors that COVID-19 is placing on clinicians can assist in recognizing what is needed to return to a point of wellness. Clinicians can leverage easily accessible tools, including the Strength-Focused and Meaning-Oriented Approach to Resilience and Transformation approach, wellness apps, mindfulness, and gratitude. Realizing early warning signs of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and posttraumatic stress disorder is important to access safe and confidential resources. Implementing wellness strategies can improve flexibility, resilience, and outlook. Historical parallels demonstrate that perseverance is as inevitable as pandemics and that we need not navigate this unprecedented time alone.

Achieving the Quadruple Aim to deliver value-based allergy care in an ever-evolving health care system

OBJECTIVE

To define the concept of value-based care in allergy, and to review challenges and opportunities in value-based health care delivery for allergists and immunologists.

DATA SOURCES

Articles describing practice variation, health care financing and reimbursement, shared decision-making, cost-effective health care delivery, patient-reported outcome measures, social determinants of health, and screening.

STUDY SELECTIONS

A narrative review detailing concepts and approaches to improve value-based health care in the context of the Quadruple Aim to address the patient and physician experience, cost, and population health.

RESULTS

Efforts to improve cost-effective care can be informed by understanding unwarranted geographic practice variation and benchmarking best practices. Although evidence suggests that shared decision-making and addressing social determinants of health have critical roles in high-quality care, some practices such as routine laboratory screening for urticaria, premedication to prevent recurrent low- or iso-osmolar contrast reactions, extended observation of resolved anaphylaxis, food allergy screening, and penicillin allergy overdiagnosis have high costs in relation to overall societal benefit. Food allergy prevention, newborn screening for severe combined immune deficiency, and penicillin delabeling are examples of population-based opportunities in which allergists and immunologists can assist in creating health care value. Although efforts to incentivize value-based care have emerged in recent years, the degree to which process measures improve patient-important outcomes remain uncertain. Clinician wellness must be made a priority for continued effective practice.

CONCLUSION

As health care systems continue to evolve, allergists and immunologists will play a key role in optimizing value by translating emerging evidence into practice and communicating novel approaches to prevent and treat allergic diseases.

Making the GRADE in anaphylaxis management: Toward recommendations integrating values, preferences, context, and shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To review GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methods and discuss the clinical application of conditional recommendations in clinical guidelines, specifically in the context of anaphylaxis.

DATA SOURCES

Articles that described GRADE, evidence synthesis, evidence to recommendation frameworks, and shared decision making were used to discuss conditional recommendations of the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline.

STUDY SELECTIONS

A narrative review detailing concepts of GRADE and approaches to translate conditional recommendations to individualized and contextualized patient care.

RESULTS

GRADE methods encourage a nuanced relationship between certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Strength of recommendation must incorporate key factors, including the balance between benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation (costs), with equity, feasibility, and acceptability also often included as considerations. GRADE guidelines provide recommendations that are characterized by directionality (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional). A conditional recommendation is tailored to context and primarily applied through a lens of patient preferences related to the likelihood of outcomes of importance and a shared decision-making approach. Although the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline better informs the practice of anaphylaxis prevention through (1) identification and mitigation of risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis and (2) evaluation of the use of glucocorticoid and/or antihistamine pretreatment, all GRADE recommendations, although directional, are conditional and as such should not be universally applied to every circumstance.

CONCLUSION

Clinical guidelines provide an important opportunity to critically appraise evidence and translate evidence to practice. Patients, practitioners, and policy makers should appreciate the strength of recommendation and certainty of evidence and understand how this affects guideline applicability and implementation.

Optimizing Value in the Evaluation of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) affects approximately 1% of the general population. The cost-effectiveness of routine laboratory testing for secondary causes of CSU has not been formally evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the cost-effectiveness of routine laboratory screening in adults with CSU.

METHODS

A Markov model using cohort analysis and microsimulations was created for adult patients aged 20 years, over a 10-year time horizon, randomized to receive screening laboratory testing or a no-testing approach. Laboratory results were derived from a previously published retrospective analysis of adult patients with CSU. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in patients with untreated CSU, and patients treated with antihistamines, cyclosporine, or omalizumab.

RESULTS

Average laboratory costs per simulated patient with CSU were $573 (standard deviation [SD], $41), with only 0.16% (SD, 3.99%) of tests resulting in improved clinical outcomes. Testing costs per laboratory-associated positive outcome were $358,052 (no therapy), $357,576 (antihistamine therapy), $354,115 (cyclosporine), and $262,121 (omalizumab). Screening tests were not cost-effective, with ICERs of $856,905 (no therapy), $855,764 (antihistamine therapy), $847,483 (cyclosporine), and $627,318 (omalizumab). In the omalizumab-treated subgroup, testing could be cost-effective below $220 or if it resulted in a 0.73% rate of CSU resolution. From a simulated US population perspective, nation-wide screening costs could reach $941,750,741 to $1,833,501,483.

CONCLUSIONS

In CSU, the likelihood of clinical improvement from laboratory testing is very low, and testing is not cost-effective. These data support recommendations to not routinely perform laboratory testing in patients with CSU with otherwise normal histories and physical evaluations.