The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview

Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview
Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview
Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This paper focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions.

Methods: We produced summaries of evidence in each domain and then synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies were independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for health economic evaluations.

Results: 23 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ration (ICER) of £10,726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (e.g., bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

Conclusions: Overall the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions into the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.
0105-4538
Asaria, M.
1dbef515-77b8-4d32-a4ba-f156dd330c08
Dhami, S.
7f99a6f6-af35-41f5-9a50-d132d09e191e
Van Ree, R.
4100f8ce-ece6-4ab0-9a4f-e0e862ef078d
Gerth van Wijk, R.
64d21a3b-ed5a-46ae-a2d2-35478f0ea484
Muraro, A.
31a2d167-86e1-4e11-87ad-6ffb7e32cd47
Roberts, G.
ea00db4e-84e7-4b39-8273-9b71dbd7e2f3
Sheikh, A.
f34621ac-f425-42fd-81e3-2057b1c9ce2f
Asaria, M.
1dbef515-77b8-4d32-a4ba-f156dd330c08
Dhami, S.
7f99a6f6-af35-41f5-9a50-d132d09e191e
Van Ree, R.
4100f8ce-ece6-4ab0-9a4f-e0e862ef078d
Gerth van Wijk, R.
64d21a3b-ed5a-46ae-a2d2-35478f0ea484
Muraro, A.
31a2d167-86e1-4e11-87ad-6ffb7e32cd47
Roberts, G.
ea00db4e-84e7-4b39-8273-9b71dbd7e2f3
Sheikh, A.
f34621ac-f425-42fd-81e3-2057b1c9ce2f

Asaria, M., Dhami, S., Van Ree, R., Gerth van Wijk, R., Muraro, A., Roberts, G. and Sheikh, A. (2017) Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview. Allergy. (doi:10.1111/all.13254).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This paper focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions.

Methods: We produced summaries of evidence in each domain and then synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies were independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for health economic evaluations.

Results: 23 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ration (ICER) of £10,726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (e.g., bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

Conclusions: Overall the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions into the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

Text
Asaria_et_al-2017-Allergy HE Guideline SR
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 14 July 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 18 September 2017

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 416738
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/416738
ISSN: 0105-4538
PURE UUID: f5783497-1a11-4ed0-9c14-b84d797a6b09

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Jan 2018 17:31
Last modified: 13 Mar 2019 19:20

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: M. Asaria
Author: S. Dhami
Author: R. Van Ree
Author: R. Gerth van Wijk
Author: A. Muraro
Author: G. Roberts
Author: A. Sheikh

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×