![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
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.
Disclosure
This health economic evaluation was funded by ALK, Denmark. SMR, UGS, JSM, LY, and LE have received grants from ALK. JNA is employed at ALK. The authors thank Anne Okkels Birk, who provided medical writing, editorial, and journal submission assistance on behalf of ALK.