Persistenz und Frequenz von Verordnungen im Bereich der subkutanen allergenspezifischen Immuntherapie (SCIT) bei GKV-Patienten in Deutschland

Claes, Christa; Mittendorf, Thomas; Schulenburg, J.-Matthias Graf von der

doi:10.1007/s00063-009-1113-8

Cited by 14 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Low treatment adherence oviously jeopardizes therapeutic success. This conclusion was confirmed by an analysis of real German statutory healthcare insurance SCIT prescription data conducted by Claes et al [ 178 ]. This study demonstrated persistence rates (consecutive average prescription rates) that dropped off over the years: in only 24 % of patients treated with established SCIT products was SCIT continued into the third year.…”

Section: Performing Specific Immunotherapysupporting

confidence: 55%

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF).AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue.Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets.The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results.According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted.Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatmen...

show abstract

Section: Performing Specific Immunotherapysupporting

confidence: 55%

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

House dust mite-specific immunotherapy with two licensed vaccines: Outcome under clinical routine conditions

Mahler

Klein

Sager

et al. 2017

Immunity, Inflammation and Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHouse dust mite (HDM) allergens are major causes for the development of allergic diseases. A disease modifying effect and clinical benefit of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been demonstrated in a number of clinical trials. Clinical trials, however, are carried out in selected populations under specific conditions based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and may not represent the entire patient population from medical practice. Objective of this study conducted in patients with HDM allergy was to systematically collect information about the benefit of AIT under clinical routine conditions.MethodsIn this prospective, multi‐center non‐interventional study, 220 patients (117 adults, 103 children) with HDM allergy receiving subcutaneous AIT with Depigoid® were monitored for 2 years. Organ‐specific key symptoms, health‐related quality of life (QoL), and the use of concomitant anti‐allergic medication were assessed at baseline and after 12 and 24 months. Effectiveness and tolerability of the AIT was assessed by physicians and patients. Occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was continuously monitored.ResultsTwo hundred and nineteen patients (116 adults, 103 children) were evaluated. A major improvement of the total symptom‐score was observed after 24 (12) months in 76% (72%) and 80% (79%) of adults and children, respectively, accompanied by a reduction in concomitant anti‐allergic medication and a pronounced improvement in QoL. The effectiveness and tolerability of the AIT was estimated as very good/good by 80–90% of physicians and patients. AEs were observed in 4/117 adults (3.4%) and in 7/103 children (6.8%). Serious AEs were reported in three adults and one child: A grade‐II anaphylactic reaction (one adult) controlled by oral antihistamines (no hospitalization) classified as “definitely,” three others as not (2) or possibly (1) drug‐related.ConclusionsThe data collected from 220 patients confirm the efficacy, tolerability/safety, and acceptance of AIT with Depigoid® in adults and children with HDM allergy under routine clinical conditions.

show abstract