ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2016
Savings associated with high-dose hypoallergenic house dust mite immunotherapy in rhinitis and/or asthma patients in Spain.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Triple-Mite SCIT With Dermatophagoides and Blomia tropicalis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2026Article
- Allergen Immunotherapy in Asthma.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify the cost difference between conventional symptomatic treatment of mite allergy and specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).
methodsObservational, retrospective, and multicenter study was carried out in Spain in 2013. The medical records of 419 patients diagnosed with rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma for mite allergy were retrieved. Mean age was 24.9 years (standard deviation 14.4). The use of symptomatic medication (rescue and daily), diagnostic tests, unscheduled medical care, and sick leave days associated with SCIT treatment versus no-SCIT treatment was compared. Also measured was the SCIT treatment to no-SCIT treatment costs ratio: used resources (symptomatic medication, unscheduled medical care, diagnostic tests, and 3 years SCIT treatment and sick leave days) were quantified in euros. Efficacy (decreased resource usage) of first-year treatment was assumed during the remaining 2 years and also during the 3-year follow-up period.
resultsAfter a single year of SCIT, all quantified resources diminished significantly (P<0.05) from baseline. Estimated reduction in cost items included hospital resources (100% in hospitalizations, 82% in visits to the allergist, and 79% in emergency room visits), therapies (56% in rescue medication and 63% in daily medication), diagnostic tests (77%), and sick leave days (94%). Ratio of comparative calculation described as SCIT treatment versus non-SCIT treatment (or conventional symptomatic treatment) is 0.8.
conclusionDirect costs are reduced by 64% and indirect costs by 94%. SCIT of hypoallergenic preparation of dust mite (Acaroid(®)) allows cost savings versus conventional treatment. Estimated savings for the public National Health System are 5.7 times the cost of immunotherapy.
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.