Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The cost-effectiveness of requiring universal vs contextual self-injectable epinephrine autoinjector for allergen immunotherapy.
Sun, Di; Cafone, Joseph; Shaker, Marcus; Greenhawt, Matthew.
Affiliation
  • Sun D; Division of Allergy and Immunology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Cafone J; Division of Allergy and Immunology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Shaker M; Section of Allergy and Immunology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire. Electronic address: marcus.s.shaker@hitchcock.org.
  • Greenhawt M; Section of Allergy and Immunology, Food Challenge and Research Unit, Children's Hospital Colorado, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 123(6): 582-589, 2019 12.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31520771
BACKGROUND: Aeroallergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a safe and effective disease-modifying treatment associated with rare therapy-associated fatality. Significant practice variation surrounds universal or contextual prescription of self-injectable epinephrine (SIE) for patients receiving AIT. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the cost-effectiveness of a universal vs contextual SIE requirement for patients receiving AIT. METHODS: An economic evaluation using cohort and microsimulation was performed from both the societal and health care sector perspectives for patients undergoing AIT, assessing a universal requirement to fill SIE prescriptions at the outset of therapy compared with requiring this only after a systemic reaction to immunotherapy (SRIT). RESULTS: A universal SIE requirement for AIT is not cost-effective, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy estimated at $669,327,730 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In the microsimulation (n = 10,000), the mean (SD) costs of a universal approach exceeded that of a more context-specific strategy where SIE was only prescribed for patients after an initial SRIT ($19,653.36 [$4296.66] vs $16,232.14 [$5204.32]), and given the effects on rates of AIT discontinuation, the universal approach was less effective (mean [SD], 25.555 [2.285] QALYs) compared with a contextualized approach (mean [SD], 25.579 [2.345] QALYs). Universal SIE prescription could be cost-effective if it provided a 1000 times protection against AIT fatality at a value-based cost of $24, and the annual AIT fatality rates unrealistically exceed 2.6 per 10,000 patients. CONCLUSION: In a simulation of potential SIE-prescribing strategies for patients receiving AIT, a universal approach to an epinephrine autoinjector requirement was not cost-effective when compared with an approach in which an SIE is prescribed only to patients with prior SRIT.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Bronchodilator Agents / Epinephrine / Desensitization, Immunologic / Hypersensitivity Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Journal subject: ALERGIA E IMUNOLOGIA Year: 2019 Document type: Article Country of publication: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Bronchodilator Agents / Epinephrine / Desensitization, Immunologic / Hypersensitivity Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Journal subject: ALERGIA E IMUNOLOGIA Year: 2019 Document type: Article Country of publication: United States