Anaphylaxis: A Payor's Perspective on Epinephrine Autoinjectors

Dunn, Jeffrey D.; Sclar, David A.

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.09.013

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[7][8][9] Between 1986 and 2011, the wholesale costs of a single-dose unit of epinephrine rose 147%. 10 Depending on the prescription plan, insurance copays can range from $30 to 100% of costs per epinephrine autoinjector pack, which lasts only 12 months. 10 Without insurance, the national average retail price per autoinjector was ~$120 in January 2013, with advertised retail prices for cash payers several hundred dollars more.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Depending on the prescription plan, insurance copays can range from $30 to 100% of costs per epinephrine autoinjector pack, which lasts only 12 months. 10 Without insurance, the national average retail price per autoinjector was ~$120 in January 2013, with advertised retail prices for cash payers several hundred dollars more. 11 In addition to autoinjectors, families with lower socioeconomic status often lack the financial means and access to allergen-free foods to prevent allergic reactions in the first place.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Economic Impact of Childhood Food Allergy

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared direct medical costs borne by the health care system and out-of-pocket costs borne by families for children with food allergy by socioeconomic characteristics. METHODS:We analyzed cross-sectional survey data collected between November 2011 and January 2012 from 1643 US caregivers with a food-allergic child. We used a 2-part regression model to estimate mean costs and identified differences by levels of household income and race or ethnicity. RESULTS:Children in the lowest income stratum incurred 2.5 times the amount of emergency department and hospitalization costs as a result of their food allergy than higher-income children ($1021, SE ±$209, vs $416, SE ±$94; P < .05). Costs incurred for specialist visits were lower in the lowest income group ($228, SE ±$21) compared with the highest income group ($311, SE ±$18; P < .01) as was spending on out-of-pocket medication costs ($117, SE ± $26, lowest income; $366, SE ±$44, highest income; P < .001). African American caregivers incurred the lowest amount of direct medical costs and spent the least on out-of-pocket costs, with average adjusted costs of $493 (SE ±$109) and $395 (SE ±$452), respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Disparities exist in the economic impact of food allergy based on socioeconomic status. Affordable access to specialty care, medications, and allergen-free foods are critical to keep all food-allergic children safe, regardless of income and race.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Economic Impact of Childhood Food Allergy

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[56][57][58] La indicación correcta de autoinyectores contribuye a la reducción de costos directos en el tratamiento de la anafilaxia. 59 …”

Section: Actualización En Las Recomendaciones Del Tratamiento Del Chounclassified

Actualización en las recomendaciones del tratamiento del choque anafiláctico: novedades sobre el uso de adrenalina

2015

Arch Argent Pediat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenEn 1998, la Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría publicó la recomendación del tratamiento del choque anafiláctico. Mientras en dicha recomendación se sugería el uso de adrenalina por vía subcutánea, actualmente se considera la vía intramuscular como la más adecuada. Aspectos farmacodinámicos determinan esta preferencia. Para el tratamiento extrahospitalario, el uso de autoinyectores de manera correcta puede colaborar en el control rápido y eficaz de la afección. El uso del resto de las medicaciones propuestas en la recomendación de 1998 se mantiene sin cambios. Palabras clave: anafilaxia, adrenalina intramuscular, autoinyectores de adrenalina. ABsTRACTIn 1998, the Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría issued the recommendation of the treatment of anaphylactic shock. While this recommendation suggested the use of subcutaneous epinephrine, currently the intramuscular via is considered the most appropriate one. Pharmacological aspects determine this preference. For outpatient treatment, the correct use of autoinjectors can control anaphylaxis quickly and effectively. The use of other medications in the proposed 1998 recommendation remains unchanged. InTRODuCCIÓnEn 1998, la Sociedad Argentina d e P e d i a t r í a ( S A P ) p u b l i c ó l a recomendación sobre el tratamiento integral del choque anafiláctico. 1 Dicho documento tuvo como objetivo unificar las medidas necesarias para el tratamiento de una entidad que requiere precisión en la identificación del paciente y en la elección del tratamiento adecuado para el rescate del niño con este problema.2,3 La anafilaxia es de aparición súbita, potencialmente mortal, por lo general, subdiagnosticada y mal tratada. 4 Esta recomendación es útil y debería considerarse en los programas de entrenamiento de las emergencias pediátricas.N o v e d a d e s i n t r o d u c i d a s e n estos últimos años obligan a realizar una actualización sobre algunos conceptos básicos de las definiciones y tratamiento del choque anafiláctico.Actualmente, se considera que existen dos definiciones de anafilaxia: una fisiopatológica y otra clínica. La primera está relacionada con la propuesta por la recomendación de 1998 y dice: "Cuadro clínico caracterizado por aquellas reacciones sistémicas atribuibles a la liberación de mediadores químicos debidas a causas conocidas (inmunológicas y no inmunológicas) o desconocidas (idiopáticas)". La segunda aclara sobre el tipo de reacción sistémica a la que se hace referencia en la primera: "Reacción alérgica generalizada multisistémica rápidamente evolutiva caracterizada por uno o más síntomas o signos de compromiso respiratorio y/o cardiovascular, y que también involucra a otros sistemas como la piel o el aparato gastrointestinal".

show abstract

“…The annual direct costs in year 2010 in the USA for EAIs are estimated to be $294 million, accounting for about 25% of the $1.2 billion annual cost to treat SARs including anaphylaxis. 5 , 6 The average wholesale price (AWP) of each EAI is included in Table 2 , except for the Auvi-Q. Accurate wholesale pricing for the Auvi-Q is not available as it is distributed through a single specialty pharmacy network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic considerations in the treatment of systemic allergic reactions

Westermann-Clark

Pepper

Lockey

2018

JAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epinephrine is a life-saving medication used to treat systemic allergic reactions including anaphylaxis. Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are expensive and worldwide availability is limited. Epinephrine prefilled syringes and epinephrine kits are potentially lower-cost alternatives to EAIs. Advantages, disadvantages, and costs of available products are discussed. The socioeconomic factors impacting access to EAIs are described.

show abstract

Anaphylaxis: A Payor's Perspective on Epinephrine Autoinjectors

Cited by 13 publications

References 12 publications

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Economic Impact of Childhood Food Allergy

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Economic Impact of Childhood Food Allergy

Actualización en las recomendaciones del tratamiento del choque anafiláctico: novedades sobre el uso de adrenalina

Economic considerations in the treatment of systemic allergic reactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About