HealthSWEDE: costs with sublingual immunotherapy—a Swedish questionnaire study

Abstract

Background The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to compare the health-economic consequences for allergic rhinitis (AR) patients treated with sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) in terms of direct and indirect costs with a reference population of patients receiving standard of care pharmacological therapy. Methods Primary objective was to analyse the health-economic consequences of SLIT for grass pollen allergy in Sweden vs reference group waiting for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). A questionnaire was mailed to two groups of AR patients. Results The questionnaire was distributed to 548 patients, 307 with SLIT and 241 in reference group (waiting for SCIT). Response rate was 53.8%. Mean annual costs were higher for reference patients than SLIT group; € 3907 (SD 4268) vs € 2084 (SD 1623) p < 0.001. Mean annual direct cost was higher for SLIT-patients, € 1191 (SD 465) than for reference, € 751 (SD 589) p < 0.001. Mean annual indirect costs for combined absenteeism and presenteeism were lower for patients treated with SLIT, € 912 (SD 1530), than for reference, € 3346 (SD 4120) p < 0.001, with presenteeism as main driver. Conclusions SLIT seems to be a cost-beneficial way to treat seasonal AR. This information might be used to guide future recommendations.

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis

“… 81 In contrast, estimated annual symptomatic medication costs of €183 have been reported in a recent Swedish economic analysis. 82 However, these medication cost differentials are offset by substantial direct and indirect cost benefits achieved with SLIT. 83 , 84 …”

Intralymphatic immunotherapy with birch and grass pollen extracts. A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial

“…Allergic rhinitis entails considerable costs for society 34 . SLIT and SCIT, although expensive, are cost‐effective 35–37 . ILIT, with only three injections, may offer faster relief from symptoms, making it more cost‐effective for patients, health care and society.…”

Modelling the Costs of Sublingual Immunotherapy versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Based on Clinical Appointments and Impacts of Patient Travel in Sweden

“…Whilst assumed that due to their similar clinical efficacy both treatments would have comparative presenteeism costs, results from a recent study suggest that SLIT may actually possess further cost savings associated with this productivity loss category, based on current timelines for treatment initiation. 49 Indeed, this would suggest that the results presented here possess an additional level of conservatism with regard to societal cost savings associated with SLIT tablets. A final limitation is that the model assumed that all patients would receive either SCIT or SLIT-tablets.…”