Health Economic Analysis of Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) 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, allergic 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 ratio (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 on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma

Cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Germany

C

Economic Assessment of Adjustable Maintenance Treatment with Budesonide/Formoterol in a Single Inhaler versus Fixed Treatment in Asthma

Objectives: To compare the costs and effectiveness of adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler versus fixed dosing in adults with asthma. Methods: In this prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial conducted in Germany, patients with asthma received budesonide/formoterol 160mug/4.5mug in a single inhaler (Symbicort(R) Turbuhaler(R)) with two inhalations twice daily for a 4-week run-in period. Patients were then randomised to either adjustable maintenance dosing (one inhalation twice daily, stepping up to four inhalations twice daily for 1 week if asthma worsened; n = 1679) or fixed dosing (two inhalations twice daily; n = 1618) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), measured using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (standardised) during the randomised treatment period. Resource utilisation data were collected in parallel and combined with German unit costs to estimate direct and indirect costs (year 2001 values). Results: Both treatment regimens were equally effective in maintaining HR-QOL and asthma control during the randomised treatment period. However, overall, patients in the adjustable maintenance dosing group took fewer daily inhalations of budesonide/formoterol than those in the fixed-dosing group (mean: 2.63 vs 3.82 inhalations; p =80% predicted normal and when total costs were considered. Conclusion: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler maintained HR-QOL in adult patients with asthma at a significantly lower cost than fixed dosing.Asthma, Bronchodilators, Budesonide, Corticosteroids, Cost-minimisation, Formoterol, Randomised-controlled-trials