A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Epinephrine Autoinjector Risk Stratification for Patients with Food Allergy—One Epinephrine Autoinjector or Two?

The Cost-effectiveness of Omalizumab for Treatment of Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is an anti-IgE therapy newly approved by the Food and Drug Administration for allergen agnostic treatment of single or multiple food allergies in patients aged 1 year or older.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as a food allergy treatment.

METHODS

We evaluated health and economic outcomes in Markov cohorts of simulated food allergic infants randomized to receive omalizumab using a 15-year horizon. Monte Carlo simulation was used (n = 40,000 subjects) to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, incorporating both a family-level and individual-level analysis. We included family-level analysis to incorporate a broad perspective for health utility change, given treatment effects likely benefit all parties at home (eg, caregivers, siblings), not just the patient, representing the sum of changes in all such persons. Supplemental analyses explored lower omalizumab cost and home initiation. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the family-level cohort analysis, omalizumab exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds ($185,183/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]). In a comparison of the omalizumab strategy (OMA) with the non-omalizumab strategy, the cost of OMA exceeded the non-omalizumab strategy ($315,020 vs $136,609) with greater incremental effectiveness (12.668 vs 11.699 QALY). In the individual-level analysis, the cost-effectiveness of OMA was $573,698/QALY. In base-case assessments, OMA was cost-effective (willingness to pay, $100,000/QALY) at a health state utility (HSU) improvement of 0.265. The value-based cost of OMA ranged from $14,166 to $23,791 when it was considered at the individual and family-unit levels. Requiring OMA administration in the clinic was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $260,239).

CONCLUSIONS

In the base case and at current pricing, omalizumab is not cost-effective, but it could be at a lower retail price or when use creates large health utility shifts in the family and patient.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy in the care of patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia

ABSTRACT

No US Food and Drug Administration- or European Medicines Agency-approved therapies exist for bleeding due to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), the second-most common inherited bleeding disorder worldwide. The current standard of care (SOC) includes iron and red cell supplementation, alongside the necessary hemostatic procedures, none of which target underlying disease pathogenesis. Recent evidence has demonstrated that bleeding pathophysiology is amenable to systemic antiangiogenic therapy with the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor bevacizumab. Despite its high cost, the addition of longitudinal bevacizumab to the current SOC may reduce overall health care resource use and improve patient quality of life. We conducted, to our knowledge, the first cost-effectiveness analysis of IV bevacizumab in patients with HHT with the moderate-to-severe phenotype, comparing bevacizumab added to SOC vs SOC alone. The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) reported over a lifetime time horizon and across accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, in US dollar per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Bevacizumab therapy accrued 9.3 QALYs while generating $428 000 in costs, compared with 8.3 QALYs and $699 000 in costs accrued in the SOC strategy. The iNMB of bevacizumab therapy vs the SOC was $433 000. No parameter variation and no scenario analysis, including choice of iron supplementation product, changed the outcome of bevacizumab being a cost-saving strategy. Bevacizumab therapy also saved patients an average of 133 hours spent receiving HHT-specific care per year of life. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab was favored in 100% of all 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations across base-case and all scenario analyses. Bevacizumab should be considered for more favorable formulary placement in the care of patients with moderate-to-severe HHT.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Contextual community epinephrine prescribing: Is more always better?

OBJECTIVE

Prompt administration of epinephrine is first-line management of anaphylaxis. Although severe anaphylaxis may require more than 1 epinephrine dose, multiple epinephrine device packs may not be necessary for all patients at risk for allergic reactions.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review was used to describe key considerations to contextualize community epinephrine prescribing.

RESULTS

Anaphylaxis has a lifetime prevalence of 1.6% to 5.1%. Meeting diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis is not required for epinephrine treatment of a severe allergic reaction. A "1-2-3" approach to anaphylaxis treatment is important to clearly relay central management steps: promptly administer a first dose of intramuscular epinephrine with proper positioning, and activate emergency medical services if immediate symptom resolution does not occur; consider a second dose of intramuscular epinephrine with consideration of oxygen administration and intravenous fluid if initial epinephrine response is not adequate; and consider a third intramuscular epinephrine dose together with consideration of intravenous fluid support and oxygen for continued lack of appropriate response. Although multiple epinephrine doses may be required to treat severe anaphylaxis, 90% of anaphylaxis cases do not require more than 1 epinephrine dose. A universal requirement for multiple epinephrine devices in patients without a history of anaphylaxis is not cost-effective. Patients without a history of anaphylaxis may be managed without multiple device prescriptions within a patient-preference sensitive paradigm of care.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylaxis prevention involves appropriate education to avoid allergen triggers, recognize symptoms of an allergic reaction, rapidly access and administer intramuscular epinephrine, and appropriately activate emergency medical services when needed. For patients with previous anaphylaxis, particularly those who have required more than 1 dose of epinephrine to treat an allergic reaction, possessing multiple epinephrine devices is an important part of managing community anaphylaxis risk.

Revisiting the Definition of Anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anaphylaxis is a common phenomenon that has been studied for many decades. Despite this, there is still disagreement among organizations regarding the precise definition for anaphylaxis. This article discusses the difference between the proposed definitions of anaphylaxis. Furthermore, the most up-to-date literature on specific subtypes of anaphylaxis is reviewed, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature on various subtypes of anaphylaxis has been conducted. This has helped clarify guidelines for conditions such as allergy to radiocontrast media, idiopathic anaphylaxis, and food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis. Recent literature has also studied available biomarkers for anaphylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of current standard-of-care prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors. Anaphylaxis is an increasingly more frequent phenomenon and remains a hot topic in current research. Much progress has been made in clarifying the definition of anaphylaxis and differentiating between subtypes, but more research is needed to identify a readily available biomarker for anaphylaxis and identify the standard of care for various subtypes of anaphylaxis.

Oral Immunotherapy in Food Allergy: Where Are We Now?

Food allergy (FA) has become more prevalent and problematic in the last 2 decades, and it poses important individual, social, and economic burdens. Besides treating reactions induced by accidental exposure and periodic evaluation for acquiring natural tolerance, the primary management approach is still allergen avoidance as a global standard. However, an active therapeutic approach that can raise the reaction threshold or accelerate tolerance is needed. This review aimed to provide an overview and the latest evidence of oral immunotherapy (OIT), which has recently been used in the active treatment of FA. FA immunotherapy, particularly OIT, is gaining considerable interest, and substantial effort has been made to integrate this active treatment into clinical practice. Consequently, growing evidence has been obtained regarding the efficacy and safety of OIT, particularly for allergens such as peanuts, eggs, and milk. However, several issues need to be addressed regarding the availability, safety, and long-term effects of this intervention. In this review, we summarize currently available information regarding tolerance-inducing immune mechanisms of OIT, data on efficacy and safety, gaps in current evidence, and ongoing research to develop new therapeutic molecules in order to enhance safety.

Who Needs Epinephrine? Anaphylaxis, Autoinjectors, and Parachutes

International guidelines stipulate that intramuscular (IM) epinephrine (adrenaline) is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, with an established good safety profile. The availability of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) has greatly facilitated the lay administration of IM epinephrine in community settings. However, key areas of uncertainty remain around epinephrine usage. These include variations in prescribing EAI, what symptoms should prompt epinephrine administration, whether emergency medical services (EMS) need to be contacted after administration, and whether epinephrine administered via EAI reduces mortality from anaphylaxis or improves quality of life measures. We provide a balanced commentary on these issues. There is increasing recognition that a poor response to epinephrine, particularly after 2 doses, is a useful marker of severity and the need for urgent escalation. It is likely that patients who respond to a single epinephrine dose do not require EMS activation or emergency department transfer, but data are needed to demonstrate the safety of this approach. Lastly, patients at risk of anaphylaxis must be counseled against over-reliance on EAI alone.

The Need for Required Stock Epinephrine in All Schools: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee

Epinephrine is the first line of treatment for anaphylaxis that can occur outside a medical setting in community environments such as schools. Patients with diagnosed IgE-mediated food allergy at risk of anaphylaxis are prescribed self-injectable epinephrine and given an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. As students, such patients/families provide their school with completed medication forms, a copy of their anaphylaxis plan, and additional student-specific epinephrine. However, students approved to self-carry prescribed self-injectable epinephrine may forget to do so or have other reasons for lacking prescribed epinephrine such as familial inability to fill the prescription due to cost or other access barriers. Undiagnosed students lacking prescribed epinephrine may also experience anaphylaxis at school. The presence of non-student-specific school stock epinephrine allows school nurses and other staff the ability to treat anaphylaxis onsite while awaiting Emergency Medical Services. Notably, not all states legally mandate K-12 schools to stock epinephrine. In states with laws only voluntarily allowing schools to stock epinephrine, it provides the ability to opt-out. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of barriers to school stock epinephrine, related improvement strategies, and workgroup recommendations supporting the need for mandated stock epinephrine in all schools in every state. Proposed solutions include ensuring legal immunity from liability for prescribers; advocacy for legislation to stabilize cost of self-injectable epinephrine; educational initiatives to schools promoting merits and safety of epinephrine and related anaphylaxis training; and partnerships between patient advocacy groups, medical and nursing organizations, public health departments and other health professionals to promote laws and district policies addressing need for stock epinephrine and school nurses to train and supervise school staff.

Anaphylaxis: Advances in the Past 10 Years

In the past 10 years, anaphylaxis has grown into its own special area of study within Allergy-Immunology, both at the bench and at the bedside. This review focuses on some of the most clinically relevant advances over the past decade. These include simplified and more inclusive diagnostic criteria for adults and children, uniform definition of biphasic anaphylaxis, and improved systems for objective severity grading. Studies reported in the past decade have led to improved understanding of normal and abnormal regulation of mast cell function, translating into better diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with anaphylaxis. Research has provided improved recognition and treatment of mast cell disorders and has identified a new condition, hereditary α-tryptasemia, that may impact anaphylactic syndromes. We have learned to recognize new causes (α-gal), new pathways (Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor-X2), and many risk factors for severe anaphylaxis. The stability of epinephrine in autoinjectors was reported to be very good for several years after the labeled expiry date, and it can tolerate freezing and thawing. Repeated and prolonged exposure to excessive heat leads to degradation of epinephrine activity. New treatments to prevent severe anaphylaxis have been described, using new ways to block the IgE receptor or modulate intracellular signaling pathways.

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.

The Economic Burden of Food Allergy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn

Purpose of Review

Food allergy management and treatment require dietary modification, are associated with significant burdens, and affect food choices and behaviours. Emerging therapies, such as oral immunotherapy (OIT), provide a glimmer of hope for those living with the condition. Some burdens have received substantial focus, whereas many knowledge gaps on the significance of other impacts, including economic burden, remain.

Recent Findings

Evidence from many countries, but disproportionately from the United States, supports that food allergy carries significant healthcare and societal costs. Early introduction for the prevention of food allergies is theoretically cost-effective, but remains largely undescribed. Unique considerations, such as those to cow’s milk protein allergy, which affects a substantial proportion of infants, and adrenaline autoinjectors, which have a high cost-per-use, require a balance between cost-effectiveness to the healthcare system and adverse outcomes. Household costs have largely been explored in two countries, but owing to different healthcare structures and costs of living, comparisons are difficult, as are generalisations to other countries. Stock epinephrine in schools may present a cost-effective strategy, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. Costs relating to OIT must be examined within both immediate benefits, such as protection from anaphylaxis, and long-term benefits, such as sustained unresponsiveness.

Summary

Although the absolute costs differ by region/country and type of food allergy, a consistent pattern persists: food allergy is a costly condition, to those who live with it, and the multiple stakeholders with which they interact.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40521-022-00306-5.

Evaluation of adrenaline auto-injector prescription profiles: A population-based, retrospective cohort study within the National Insurance Claims Database of Japan

BACKGROUND

Adrenaline is the first-line medication for managing anaphylaxis. A better understanding of prescription trends for adrenaline auto-injectors (AAIs) is important to improving patient care as well as information on health education interventions and medical guidelines. However, it has been difficult to gather comprehensive data in a sustainable manner. Thus, we aimed to investigate trends in AAI prescriptions in Japan.

METHODS

We searched the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB), a unique and comprehensive database of health insurance claims, and investigated prescriptions for AAIs for all ages (April 2017 to March 2018). We assessed the annual number of prescriptions per person as well as prescription rates per 100,000 population per year by age, sex, and geographic region.

RESULTS

A total of 88,039 subjects (56,109 males, 31,930 female) and 116,758 devices (1.33 AAIs per patient per year) were prescribed AAIs at least once a year for all ages. The prescription rate for AAIs was 69.5 per 100,000 population-years. Patients aged 0-9 years were prescribed AAIs at the rate of 278.9 per 100,000 population-years. Patients aged 0-19 years were 6.4 times more likely to be prescribed AAIs than those over 20 years of age. Males were more frequently prescribed AAIs than females in all age groups, except for those aged 20-24 years. We also evaluated differences in prescription rates by geographic region.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive evaluation revealed trends in AAI prescriptions, thus helping develop preventive strategies with respect to anaphylaxis in Japan.

Estimation of Health and Economic Benefits of a Small Automatic External Defibrillator for Rapid Treatment of Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SMART): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) occurs in 0.4% of the general population and up to 6% or more of at-risk groups each year. Early CPR and defibrillation improves SCA outcomes but access to automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) remains limited.

Methods

Markov models were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a portable SMART (SMall AED for Rapid Treatment of SCA) approach to early SCA management over a life-time horizon in at-risk and not at-risk populations. Simulated patients (n = 600,000) who had not received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were randomized to a SMART device with CPR prompts or non-SMART approaches. Annual SCA risk was varied from 0.2 to 3.5%. Analysis was performed in a US economy from both societal (SP) and healthcare (HP) perspectives to evaluate the number of SCA fatalities prevented by SMART, and SMART cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $100,000/Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY).

Results

A SMART approach was cost-effective when annual SCA risk exceeded 1.51% (SP) and 1.62% (HP). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were $95,251/QALY (SP) and $100,797/QALY (HP) at a 1.60% SCA annual risk. At a 3.5% annual SCA risk, SMART was highly cost-effective from both SP and HP [ICER: $53,925/QALY (SP), $59,672/QALY (HP)]. In microsimulation, SMART prevented 1,762 fatalities across risk strata (1.59% fatality relative risk reduction across groups). From a population perspective, SMART could prevent at least 109,839 SCA deaths in persons 45 years and older in the United States.

Conclusions and Relevance

A SMART approach to SCA prophylaxis prevents fatalities and is cost-effective in patients at elevated SCA risk. The availability of a smart-phone enabled pocket-sized AED with CPR prompts has the potential to greatly improve population health and economic outcomes.

Anaphylaxis: Access to Epinephrine in Outpatient Setting

Epinephrine is a lifesaving medication to treat systemic allergic reactions including anaphylaxis. Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are expensive, not available everywhere in the world, and shortages can limit their access. Epinephrine prefilled syringes and epinephrine kits are lower-cost alternatives to EAIs. Advantages, disadvantages, and costs of available products are discussed and the socioeconomic factors impacting access to EAIs described. EAIs designed for infants also are discussed.

Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109.

RESULTS

A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with more than 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis this estimate was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition.

CONCLUSION

Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with more than 1 dose of epinephrine.

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.