Safety and Effectiveness of a Single Multiallergen Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in Polyallergic Patients.

BACKGROUND: As the number of allergic sensitizations increases the severity of allergic respiratory diseases worsens. Multiple monoallergen immunotherapy can be accompanied by poor treatment adherence and high costs, single multiallergen immunotherapy needs to prove efficacy whilst maintaining a good safety profile. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, multicenter study using a 2-pollen single undiluted multiallergen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in routine clinical practice in Spain. Patients with rhinoconjunctivitis, with/without controlled asthma, sensitized to grass, olive, Parietaria, Cupressus, plane tree and/or Salsola pollen were included. Primary and secondary clinical efficacy endpoints were quality of life (mini Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (miniRQLQ)) and visual analogue scale (VAS) respectively. All adverse events were documented. RESULTS: Ten centers included 97 patients, median age 32 years. SCIT treatment included combinations of grass mix with olive, Parietaria, Cupressus, plane tree or Salsola or olive with Parietaria, Cupressus or Salsola. The mean duration of SCIT was 1.8 years with a high treatment adherence (73%). Significant improvement in quality of life, nasal and ocular symptoms, activity limitations and practical problems (p< 0.0001) and other symptoms (p= 0.024) was observed. Most patients did not develop asthma-like symptoms and a significant improvement of all allergic symptom severity was perceived. VAS showed a significant improvement in rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma by patients and physicians. Twenty-nine patients experienced adverse reactions, 25 had local and 6 had systemic reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Single undiluted multiallergen SCIT treatment of two different pollens is efficacious and safe in both children and adults, showing that it is a suitable option for the treatment of polyallergic patients.

Partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based infant formula and the prevention of atopic dermatitis: comparative pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that the risk of developing atopic dermatitis is reduced when using hydrolysed formulas to feed infants with a documented risk of atopy (i.e. an affected parent and/or sibling)when breastfeeding is not practised. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of using hydrolysed formulas. Consequently, economic analyses in 5 European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland) have evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of a specific brand of 100% whey-based partially hydrolysed infant formula, NAN-HA® (PHF-W) compared with a cow's milk standard formula (SF) in the prevention of atopic dermatitis in at-risk children. This review synthesises the findings of these studies. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) used a decision-analytic model to determine treatment pathways, resource utilisation and costs associated with the management of atopic dermatitis in healthy at-risk newborns who were not exclusively breastfed. The model had a 12-month horizon and applied reimbursement rates of 60-100% depending on the country. Outcomes were considered from the perspective of the public healthcare system (e.g. the Ministry of Health; MOH), family and society. The final outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per avoided case of atopic dermatitis (ICER) for PHF-W versus SF. A cost-minimisation analysis was also performed to compare PHF-W with extensively hydrolysed formulas (EHF). The base-case CEA produced ICERs per avoided case for PHF-W versus SF of EUR 982-1,343 (MOH perspective), EUR -2,202 to -624 (family perspective) indicating savings, and EUR -1,220 to 719 from the societal perspective. The main costs related to formula (MOH and society) and time loss (family). In the cost-minimisation analysis, PHF-W yielded savings of between EUR 4.3 and 120 million compared with EHF-whey when the latter was used in prevention. In conclusion, PHF-W was cost-effective versus SF in the prevention of atopic dermatitis and cost saving compared with EHF when used in prevention.