RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Allergy immunotherapy (AIT), in the form of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with alum-precipitated aqueous extracts, SCIT with a modified ragweed pollen allergen tyrosine adsorbate (MRPATA; Pollinex®-R), or a sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet are options for the treatment of ragweed pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in Canadian children. A cost minimization analysis evaluated the economic implications of the use of the ragweed SLIT-tablet vs SCIT in Canadian children with ragweed ARC. METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was conducted comparing the short ragweed SLIT-tablet, 12 Amb a 1-U, preseasonally with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, annual ragweed SCIT, or MRPATA. The analysis was conducted over a time horizon of 3 years from a public payer perspective in Ontario and Quebec. Resources and costs associated with medication and services of healthcare professionals were considered for each treatment. The resource and cost input values for the model were obtained from published literature and validated by Canadian clinical experts in active allergy practice. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied. Several scenario analyses were conducted to determine the impact of many of the key base case assumptions on the outcomes. RESULTS: Over the total 3-year time horizon, the ragweed SLIT-tablet had a potential cost savings of $900.14 in Ontario and $1023.14 in Quebec when compared with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, of $6613.22 in Ontario and $8750.64 in Quebec when compared with annual ragweed SCIT, and $79.62 in Ontario and $429.49 in Quebec when compared with MRPATA. The ragweed SLIT-tablet had higher drug costs compared with the other AIT options, but lower costs for healthcare professional services. The lower costs for healthcare professional services with the ragweed SLIT-tablet were driven by the need for fewer office visits than SCIT. Scenario analysis indicated that costs were most impacted by including societal costs (e.g., costs associated with patient/caregiver travel and time lost). The potential cost savings of the ragweed SLIT-tablet versus SCIT and MRPATA was maintained in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost minimization analysis, the ragweed SLIT-tablet provided estimated cost savings from a public payer perspective for the treatment of ragweed ARC in Canadian children compared with SCIT or MRPATA.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to evaluate the economic implications of introducing the SQ Tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets marketed as ITULATEK® (Health Canada regulatory approval in April 2020) for the treatment of pollen-induced (birch, alder and/or hazel) seasonal allergic rhinitis in Canada (Ontario and Quebec), where Tree Pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is already an available treatment option. METHODS: A CMA was deemed appropriate and was based on the assumption that the SQ Tree SLIT-tablets have comparable efficacy to Tree Pollen SCIT. A societal perspective was adopted in the model, including relevant costs of medications, costs of health care services, and productivity losses. The time horizon in the model was three years, which corresponds to a minimal treatment course of allergy immunotherapy. Resource use and costs were based on published sources, where available, and validated by Canadian specialist clinicians (allergists) in active practice in Ontario and in Quebec, where applicable. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied in accordance with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) guidelines. To assess the robustness of the results, scenario analyses were performed by testing alternative assumptions for selected parameters (e.g., Tree Pollen SCIT resource use, discount rates, number of injections, annual SCIT dosing with maintenance injections, and nurse time support), to evaluate their impact on the results of the analysis. RESULTS: The direct costs, including the drug costs, and physician services costs, for three years of treatment, were similar for both SQ Tree SLIT-tablets vs. Tree Pollen SCIT in both Ontario and Quebec ($2799.01 and $2838.70 vs. $2233.76 and $2266.05 respectively). However, when the indirect costs (including patient's travel expenses and lost working hours) are included in the model, total savings for the treatment with SQ Tree SLIT-tablets of $1111.79 for Ontario and $1199.87 for Quebec were observed. Scenario analyses were conducted and showed that changes in assumptions continue to result in the savings of SQ Tree SLIT- tablets over Tree Pollen SCIT. CONCLUSIONS: The CMA indicates that SQ Tree SLIT-tablets are a cost-minimizing alternative to Tree Pollen SCIT when considered from a societal perspective in Ontario and Quebec.
