RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disorder triggered by an allergic immune response to inhaled allergens. Birch pollen is the major allergenic tree pollen in parts of Europe. ITULAZAX® is a sublingual immunotherapy tablet for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe AR and/or conjunctivitis induced by pollen from the birch homologous group. The aim was to compare the costs of treating AR with ITULAZAX® versus subcutaneous ALUTARD SQ® Betula verrucosa (ALUTARD SQ®) from a Danish societal perspective. METHODS: A cost-minimization model was developed to capture costs of allergy immunotherapy (AIT), interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs) in three different care settings (general practice, allergy specialist, and hospital), and indirect costs arising from absenteeism and presenteeism. The cost-minimization analysis was conducted over a 3-year time horizon with costs reported in 2021 Danish Kroner (DKK) and Euros (EUR) based on the European Central Bank 365-day average exchange rate. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that the total cost of treatment over 3 years was estimated to be DKK 49,117 (EUR 6598) per patient with ALUTARD SQ®, compared with DKK 30,996 (EUR 4164) with ITULAZAX®, reflecting a cost saving of DKK 18,121 (EUR 2434) per patient with ITULAZAX® over 3 years. Over the 3-year time horizon, costs of AIT were predicted to increase by DKK 17,928 (EUR 2408) with ITULAZAX®, while costs of interactions with HCPs were predicted to decrease by DKK 22,528 (EUR 3027) versus ALUTARD SQ®, more than offsetting the increased cost of ITULAZAX®. CONCLUSIONS: Given the equivalent effectiveness of the two AIT products, and the cost savings with ITULAZAX® versus ALUTARD SQ® from a Danish societal perspective, ITULAZAX® should be considered as a cost-saving alternative to ALUTARD SQ® for the treatment of birch pollen-induced moderate-to-severe AR in adults.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis constitutes a large burden for society. Up to 20% of European and United States (US) populations suffer from respiratory allergies, including grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The majority of patients are treated with symptomatic medications; however, a large proportion remains uncontrolled despite use of such treatments. Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment documented to target the underlying cause of the disease, leading to a sustained effect after completion of treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the economic consequences of treating patients suffering from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with either a grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) or subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). METHODS: A budget impact analysis was applied comparing SQ-standardized grass AIT (Grazax(®); Phleum pratense, 75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU; ALK, Denmark) with SCIT (Alutard(®); P. pratense, 100,000 SQ-U/mL; ALK, Denmark). Budget impact analysis included health care utilization measured in physical units based on systematic literature reviews, guidelines, and expert opinions, as well as valuation in unit costs based on drug tariffs, physician fees, and wage statistics. Budget impact analysis was conducted from a Danish health care perspective. RESULTS: Treating patients suffering from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with grass AIT instead of grass SCIT resulted in a total reduction in treatment costs of 1291 per patient during a treatment course. This cost saving implies that approximately 40% more patients could be treated with grass AIT per year without influencing the cost of treatment. CONCLUSION: Budget impact analysis showed that grass AIT is a cost-saving alternative to SCIT when treating patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
