Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28217432›Full record

ArticleAllergo journal international2017

Cost-effectiveness of grass pollen SCIT compared with SLIT and symptomatic treatment.

Thomas Reinhold, Bernd Brüggenjürgen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Allergo journal international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Modified Allergens for Immunotherapy.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2018
    Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas ReinholdInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Luisenstraße 57, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Bernd BrüggenjürgenInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Luisenstraße 57, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DESteinbeis University Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhereas specific immunotherapy (SIT) has already been shown to be cost-effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis compared with symptomatic treatment, only a small number of investigations have compared sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT) immunotherapeutic approaches. This analysis discusses the cost-effectiveness of SCIT compared with SLIT and a symptomatic treatment modality. At the same time, particular attention is paid to preparation-specific characteristics.

methodsThe investigation is based on a previously published health economic model calculation. A Markov model, with predefined disease stages and a time period of 9 years, formed the basis of the analysis. The data on specific SCIT (Allergovit®) and SLIT (Oralair®) preparations required for the calculation were adjusted for the present analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based on symptom scores were calculated as the endpoint for effectiveness. Furthermore, the total costs and cost effectiveness of SCIT were determined. Model uncertainties were estimated by means of additional sensitivity analyses.

resultsWith regard to effectiveness, both the SCIT and SLIT preparations proved superior compared to symptomatic treatment. Although more expensive, SIT seem to be cost-effective. A direct comparison of SCIT (Allergovit®) and SLIT (Oralair®) showed lower total costs for SCIT treatment over the study period (SCIT 1159 € versus SLIT 1322 €) and improved effectiveness (SCIT 7.112 QALYs versus SLIT 7.060 QALYs). DISCUSSION: SIT represents a cost-effective treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis compared with symptomatic treatment. The comparison of SCIT (Allergovit®) and SLIT (Oralair®) showed SCIT to be predominant and cost-effective, due in particular to somewhat greater patient compliance and lower drug costs. It also became evident that, as far as possible, product-specific model variables are required for an economic evaluation of SIT treatment.

Indexed as

Allergic rhinitisCost effectivenessModel calculationSpecific immunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID28217432
PMCPMC5288417
OpenAlexW2556763448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.