Pharmacoeconomics of allergy immunotherapy versus pharmacotherapy

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

Hot topics in allergen immunotherapy, 2023: Current status and future perspective

The importance of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is multifaceted, encompassing both clinical and quality-of-life improvements and cost-effectiveness in the long term. Key mechanisms of allergen tolerance induced by AIT include changes in memory type allergen-specific T- and B-cell responses towards a regulatory phenotype with decreased Type 2 responses, suppression of allergen-specific IgE and increased IgG1 and IgG4, decreased mast cell and eosinophil numbers in allergic tissues and increased activation thresholds. The potential of novel patient enrolment strategies for AIT is taking into account recent advances in biomarkers discoveries, molecular allergy diagnostics and mobile health applications contributing to a personalized approach enhancement that can increase AIT efficacy and compliance. Artificial intelligence can help manage and interpret complex and heterogeneous data, including big data from omics and non-omics research, potentially predict disease subtypes, identify biomarkers and monitor patient responses to AIT. Novel AIT preparations, such as synthetic compounds, innovative carrier systems and adjuvants, are also of great promise. Advances in clinical trial models, including adaptive, complex and hybrid designs as well as real-world evidence, allow more flexibility and cost reduction. The analyses of AIT cost-effectiveness show a clear long-term advantage compared to pharmacotherapy. Important research questions, such as defining clinical endpoints, biomarkers of patient selection and efficacy, mechanisms and the modulation of the placebo effect and alternatives to conventional field trials, including allergen exposure chamber studies are still to be elucidated. This review demonstrates that AIT is still in its growth phase and shows immense development prospects.

Modelling the impact of sublingual immunotherapy versus subcutaneous immunotherapy on patient travel time and CO2 emissions in Sweden

In Sweden, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is available as either subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) injections or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets and is used to treat moderate-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This study sought to determine treatment-related CO2 emissions and travel times in Swedish patients receiving either SCIT or SLIT-tablets. A list of specialized Swedish AR clinics that administer AIT was determined, and respective co-ordinates retrieved. Swedish municipality population data were obtained from a national database. The mean distance from each Swedish municipality to the nearest AR clinic was calculated, adjusted using a detour index, and weighted by estimated patient population size. Transport modality data were obtained from a Swedish urban transport study and CO2 emissions were obtained from Government sources. The mean number of annual SLIT-tablets and SCIT doses required were calculated based on product labels and clinical expert input. The annual number of healthcare professional interactions were layered into the model to estimate changes in mean patient travel time, distance, and travel-related CO2 emissions associated with using SCIT versus SLIT-tablets. Mean annual travel-related CO2 emissions were 410 tonnes (to two significant figures [s.f.]; standard deviation [SD] 90) with SLIT-tablets, versus 1700 tonnes (SD 380) for SCIT, resulting in mean annual savings of approximately 1300 tonnes (SD 290) of CO2 if all AIT patients were to receive SLIT-tablets instead of SCIT, over 380 times greater than 2021 average Swedish CO2 emissions per capita. Approximate mean annual travel times for patients taking SLIT-tablets were 66,500 h (three s.f.; SD 14,400), and 278,000 h (SD 60,200) for SCIT, resulting in mean annual savings of 211,000 h (SD 45,800) if all AIT patients were to receive SLIT-tablets instead of SCIT. Compared with SCIT injections, SLIT-tablets led to substantial reductions in treatment-related CO2 emissions and travel times for Swedish patients.

Effects of house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy in real-life. Immunological and clinical biomarkers and economic impact analysis

Background

Etiology of allergic rhinitis and asthma is frequently associated with house dust mite sensitization and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only disease modifying treatment. In a real world setting, clinicians would benefit from biomarkers to monitor or predict response to AIT.

Methods

Twenty-four consecutive house dust mite (HDM) mono-sensitized rhinitic patients, treated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as per clinical practice, were enrolled. Multiple in vitro biomarkers such as basophil activation (BAT), IL-10 levels, and molecular allergen-specific IgE were performed during HDM SCIT, to monitor the effects of AIT and then correlated to in vivo scores (VAS, CMSS, RQLQ). Nasal cytology was performed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Finally, the economic impact of SCIT in this cohort of patients was evaluated.

Results

Clinical biomarkers confirmed to be useful to monitor AIT efficacy. As for laboratory biomarkers, BAT showed a reduction trend, particularly for D2C1, suggesting that this is a useful parameter in monitoring patients. IL-10 levels tend to remain stable or slightly decrease during treatment. The economic analysis confirmed the favorable impact of immunotherapy.

Conclusions

In this cohort of patients, SCIT confirmed its effectiveness in reducing symptoms and drug utilization. Clinical scores confirmed to be valid in monitoring patients and their response. BAT demonstrated to be useful in monitoring more than predicting response. Further studies are needed to better explore the usefulness of these biomarkers in AIT.

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.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual allergen immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets represent a new allergen immunotherapy option for clinicians. In North America, there are five SLIT-tablets approved for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). No SLIT-drops products are currently approved in the United States or Canada. This work reviewed the efficacy of the timothy grass SLIT-tablet, five-grass SLIT-tablet, ragweed SLIT-tablet, house-dust mite SLIT-tablet, and tree SLIT-tablet in patients with ARC. All the SLIT-tablets showed consistent clinical efficacy for the treatment of ARC in large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, including for both patients who were monosensitized and those who were polysensitized. Treatment with house-dust mite SLIT-tablet has shown efficacy in patients who are pollen sensitized during their respective pollen seasons. In contrast to SLIT-tablets, efficacy studies of SLIT-drops show high heterogeneity of treatment effect. Although data are scarce, data that compared the efficacy of SLIT-tablets versus ARC pharmacotherapy generally indicated that SLIT-tablets had a greater benefit than pharmacotherapy when compared with placebo, particularly for perennial ARC. When compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy, analysis of these data indicated that SLIT-tablets had a benefit over subcutaneous immunotherapy in regard to safety but somewhat less benefit in regard to efficacy. The safety of SLIT-tablets has been well documented, and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration class label with safety considerations is present in the prescribing information for all SLIT-tablets. No new safety signals have been observed after reinitiating SLIT-tablets after a short treatment interruption.

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3–5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.