Cost-benefit analysis of first-generation antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Second-Generation Antihistamine 1 Receptor Blockers and Japanese Kampo Shoseiryuto for Treating Perennial Allergic Rhinitis in Outpatient Settings in Japan

Objectives: Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is common in Japan. Second-generation antihistamines (SGAs) are commonly used for its treatment; however, it remains unclear which SGA is the most cost-effective. Additionally, the pharmacoeconomics of Japanese Kampo shoseiryuto (which was traditionally prescribed to treat PAR in Japan) remains poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of various SGAs and shoseiryuto for the treatment of PAR in Japanese outpatients, from the healthcare payer's perspective. Methods: The most cost- and clinically effective SGAs were determined from a list of 6 SGAs (bepotastine, 10 mg; cetirizine, 10 mg; ebastine, 10 mg; epinastine, 20 mg; loratadine, 10 mg; and olopatadine, 5 mg) together with shoseiryuto, using the overall improvement rate through a model-based analysis. The time horizon was 28 days. Costs were determined based on the Medical Fee Index in 2020. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address the uncertainty of the base-case results. Results: Overall, bepotastine (10 mg) and ebastine (10 mg) were cost-effective. Shoseiryuto was less cost-effective than ebastine (10 mg) (dominated). Ebastine (10 mg) was the most cost-effective option based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Ebastine (10 mg) was the most cost-effective treatment strategy for PAR among the agents evaluated in this study. This insight could aid in establishing an appropriate formulary for treating PAR in hospitals and communities.

The use of pharmacoeconomic evidence to support formulary decision making in Saudi Arabia: Methodological recommendations

In pharmacoeconomics the costs and consequences of alternative medications are compared. Many countries have begun to use pharmacoeconomic evidence to support decisions on licensing, pricing, reimbursement, or addition to the formulary. In Saudi Arabia, it is not mandatory to submit cost effectiveness evidence to support licensing or addition to the formulary decisions however, data will be considered if submitted. Previous evidence suggests that the use of pharmacoeconomic evidence by Saudi Pharmacy and Therapeutic (P&T) committee members in formulary decisions making process is limited mainly because of lack of expertise and lack of resources. This paper intended to provide Saudi P&T decision makers with a clear set of best practice methodological recommendations to help in increasing the utilisation of pharmacoeconomic evidence in the formulary decisions making process.

The cost-effectiveness of treatment with desloratadine in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVES

A new classification of persistent allergic rhinitis (PER) has been developed by the ARIA working group. Although the burden of AR is significant, treatment itself is also costly. It is unclear if treatment based on the new definition of PER is cost-effective.

METHODS

The current study simulated the cost-effectiveness of desloratadine compared to placebo in the treatment of PER from the French societal perspective. Decision analysis was used to model the costs, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness over 12 months. Costs included medical expenditures (physician visits and prescription drugs) attributable to PER and related comorbidities and lost productivity due to absenteeism and presenteeism. Prices, tariffs and national wages were estimated from French national sources. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS INCLUDED: symptom-based visual analogue scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), Total 5 Symptoms Score (T5SS), categorical improvement in therapeutic response, interference with activities of daily living (ADL) and sleep outcomes. Mild or symptom-free days and 'responders' were also captured as outcomes. Univariate and second-order multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment with desloratadine dominated placebo (cost less and resulted in greater effectiveness) for all measures of effectiveness. Of the individuals taking desloratadine 46.8% were classified as 'responders' vs. 34.8% for placebo (p = 0.0012). Individuals taking desloratadine experienced mild/no symptoms for 57.6% of study days vs. 36.5% for placebo (p = 0.002). The expected annual cost of treatment with desloratadine (1819 euro) was less than placebo (2618 euro). Lost productivity was the most significant contributor to total cost. Results of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations showed that treatment was cost-saving in 99.6% of simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of PER with desloratadine resulted in improved effectiveness and significant savings. While the cost of drug treatment is greater than that of no treatment, the downstream costs associated with not treating PER significantly outweigh the cost of treatment. Key limitations include the comparison of desloratadine to placebo and the sources of cost and effectiveness measures. Future studies should examine the cost-effectiveness of all available treatments for PER. In addition, many utilization, productivity and effectiveness measures were taken from clinical trials and may not accurately reflect 'real world' treatment patterns and outcomes.

Costs of second-generation antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: US perspective

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacoeconomic literature evaluating use of antihistamines in treating allergic rhinitis (AR) in the US.

METHODS

Three independent reviewers conducted a comprehensive search of the current literature with PubMed. They identified articles describing original research comprising US cost analyses or pharmacoeconomic evaluations that reported both costs and consequences of using second-generation anthistamines (SGAs), first-generation antihistamines (FGAs), or both for the treatment of patients with AR. The search was limited to studies performed in humans and published in English between 1998 and 2008.

RESULTS

Five of 200 articles met the inclusion criteria and examined costs associated primarily with chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, cetirizine, and fexofenadine. The first two studies retrospectively analyzed a claims database and concluded that fexofenadine was associated with slightly lower overall costs than loratadine and cetirizine. A third study compared total healthcare costs associated with FGAs and SGAs, concluding that despite their higher prescription cost, SGAs result in lower medical resource use and lower cost for treatment of AR versus FGAs, although no individual SGA could be distinguished as providing substantial healthcare cost savings or increased cost-effectiveness over the other SGAs. Two studies investigated the impact of transitioning a prescription SGA to over-the-counter status and concluded that such a transition would provide cost savings to healthcare plans, but did not address the cost or health effect of such a switch on specific populations whose plans might no longer cover prescription SGAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary evidence suggests that newer SGAs offer clinical, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic advantages that may translate into superior cost-effectiveness in the treatment of AR. Further study is warranted to clarify the pharmacoeconomic impact of the newer SGAs and to establish their relative cost-effectiveness.

Pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis: a pharmaco-economic approach

This article reports on a systematic literature review of the costs of allergic rhinitis (AR), the economic value of pharmacotherapy of AR, and the factors affecting costs and economic value of pharmacotherapy. Included studies had carried out a cost-of-illness analysis, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit analysis. Allergic rhinitis imposes a substantial economic burden on society, with indirect costs of productivity loss being larger than the direct healthcare costs. Cost estimates were biased because of difficulties of diagnosis; exclusion of patients who do not seek healthcare; exclusion of over-the-counter medication; difficulties in estimating productivity loss. There is limited evidence on costs of seasonal/perennial and intermittent/persistent AR. Little is known of the economic value of pharmacotherapy of AR, although levocetirizine appears to be cost-effective as compared with placebo. Economic evaluations suffered limitations from small sample sizes, short trial duration, lack of standardized effectiveness measure, restricted scope of costs. Finally, the economic value of pharmacotherapy of AR is influenced by the perspective of the economic evaluation, relative effectiveness and costs of available drugs, patient compliance with treatment.

Allergic rhinitis--current pharmacotherapy

The use of pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis remains a central strategy in the integrated treatment of the patient. The most appropriate medical therapy depends upon the nature of specific rhinitis symptoms, patient tolerance to and preference for certain classes of medications, and response to treatment. Through an appreciation of these various physiological mechanisms, the physician can select the treatment option or options that will be most likely to effectively manage symptoms.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.