A non-stationary Markov model for economic evaluation of grass pollen allergoid immunotherapy

Breaking the mold: nontraditional approaches to allergen immunotherapy for environmental allergens

Allergen immunotherapy is a disease-modifying treatment for allergic diseases. The predominant traditional immunotherapy is through subcutaneous administration of allergens to gradually desensitize allergic individuals. While effective, traditional allergen immunotherapy approaches are often lengthy, time consuming for patients and can result in local or systemic adverse reactions. Nontraditional immunotherapies are emerging as promising alternatives, offering potentially more convenient, safe and efficacious treatment options. This review sought to comprehensively examine the safety, efficacy and performance of various nontraditional immunotherapies for environmental allergens. Nontraditional immunotherapy approaches covered in this review include sublingual, local nasal, intralymphatic rush and ultra-rush immunotherapy, allergoid, microbial and anti-IgE immunotherapies. Nontraditional immunotherapies show significant promise in addressing the limitations of traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy. Methods like intralymphatic and rush immunotherapy offer shorter treatment regimens, enhancing patient adherence and convenience. The co-administration of probiotics or monoclonal antibodies, like omalizumab, with AIT appears to improve treatment efficacy and safety. Despite these advancements, further large-scale, long-term studies are needed to establish standardized protocols, dosing and validate long-term effects of these nontraditional immunotherapies. Standardizing outcome measurements across studies is crucial for accurate comparisons of nontraditional immunotherapies prior to widespread clinical adoption of these innovative techniques.

Allergen immunotherapy: The growing role of observational and randomized trial "Real-World Evidence"

BACKGROUND

Although there is a considerable body of knowledge about allergen immunotherapy (AIT), there is a lack of data on the reliability of real-world evidence (RWE) in AIT, and consequently, a lack of information on how AIT effectively works in real life.

METHODS

To address the current unmet need for an appraisal of the quality of RWE in AIT, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Methodology Committee recently initiated a systematic review of observational studies of AIT, which will use the RELEVANT tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) to rate the quality of the evidence base as a whole. The next step will be to develop a broadly applicable, pragmatic "real-world" database using systematic data collection. Based on the current RWE base, and perspectives and recommendations of authorities and scientific societies, a hierarchy of RWE in AIT is proposed, which places pragmatic trials and registry data at the positions of highest level of evidence.

KEY RESULTS

There is a need to establish more AIT registries that collect data in a cohesive way, using standardized protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

This will provide an essential source of real-world data that can be easily shared, promoting evidence-based research and quality improvement in study design and clinical decision-making.

Pharmacoeconomics of allergy immunotherapy versus pharmacotherapy

Introduction: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and other allergic conditions.Area covered: An extensive search of the PubMed and Medline database (January 1996 up to June of 2020) was conducted using the search terms allergy immunotherapy, pharmacoeconomics, cost-effectiveness, allergic rhinitis, and asthma. Studies were included if they included information on the economics of AIT in comparison to pharmacotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis or asthma either as actual costs or based on theoretical models. Systematic reviews were included if they included information about the cost-effectiveness of AIT.Most clinical trials found significant cost-savings with AIT. The cost-effective time-point ranged from a few months to several years after treatment initiation.. Cost savings were demonstrated as early as 3 months after treatment initiation and were as great as 80% less than SDT in some studies.Expert opinion: There is strong evidence in the collective literature that AIT is cost-effective as compared to SDT alone. The magnitude of AIT's cost-effectiveness is likely underestimated because most of the studies considered during treatment costs and not AIT's long-term benefits or preventive/prophylactic effects or its impact on co-morbid conditions.