ArticleAmerican journal of rhinology & allergy
Decision-making analysis for allergen immunotherapy versus nasal steroids in the treatment of nasal steroid-responsive allergic rhinitis.
Article in American journal of rhinology & allergy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel Approaches to Allergen Immunotherapy for Respiratory Allergies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2018Article
- Administration and Burden of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in U.S. and Canadian Clinical Practice.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2015Observational
- Editorial: Insight into allergic, rhinologic and skull based pathologies.American journal of rhinology & allergyArticle
- Letters to the Editor: Assessing the cost-effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis.American journal of rhinology & allergyArticle
- Facial Candling for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis in Young Adults: A Qualitative Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the study was to determine the age at which initiation of specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) becomes more cost-effective than continued lifetime intranasal steroid (NS) therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, with the use of a decision analysis model.
methodsA Markov decision analysis model was created for this study. Economic analyses were performed to identify "break-even" points in the treatment of allergic rhinitis with the use of SCIT and NS. Efficacy rates for therapy and cost data were collected from the published literature. Models in which there was only incomplete improvement while receiving SCIT were also evaluated for economic break-even points. The primary perspective of the study was societal.
resultsMultiple break-even point curves were obtained corresponding to various clinical scenarios. For patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis requiring NS (i.e., fluticasone) 6 months per year, the age at which initiation of SCIT provides long-term direct cost advantage is less than 41 years. For patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms requiring year-round NS, the cut-off age for SCIT cost-effectiveness increases to 60 years. Hypothetical subjects who require continued NS treatment (50% reduction of previous dosage) while receiving SCIT also display break-even points, whereby it is economically advantageous to consider allergy referral and SCIT, dependent on the cost of the NS prescribed.
conclusionThe age at which SCIT provides economic advantages over NS in the treatment of allergic rhinitis depends on multiple clinical factors. Decision analysis models can assist the physician in accounting for these factors and customize patient counseling with regard to treatment options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.