Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34819723›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021

Preference for Immunotherapy with Tablets by People with Allergic Rhinitis.

Mike Tankersley, Tonya Winders, Mark Aagren, Henrik Brandi, Mikkel Hasse Pedersen, Anne Sofie Ledgaard Loftager, Mette Bøgelund

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. 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
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2024
    Article
  4. Minimization of ragweed allergy immunotherapy costs through use of the sublingual immunotherapy tablet in Canadian children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mike TankersleyDepartments of Medicine, Pediatrics and Otolaryngology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Tonya WindersAllergy & Asthma Network, Vienna, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7689-6438
Mark AagrenDepartment of Global Market Access & Public Affairs, ALK, Hørsholm, Denmark.
Henrik BrandiDepartment of Global Market Access & Public Affairs, ALK, Hørsholm, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2132-6483
Mikkel Hasse PedersenIncentive Denmark, Holte, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3568-767X
Anne Sofie Ledgaard LoftagerIncentive Denmark, Holte, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4906-6022
Mette BøgelundIncentive Denmark, Holte, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0866-9414
ALK-Abelló (Denmark) · DKUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with allergic rhinitis (AR) who are not controlled on conventional therapy can be treated using allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as tablets, injections or drops. In the US, the use of sublingual immunotherapy as tablets (SLIT-tablets) is limited in comparison to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).

objectiveThis study investigated patients' preference for SLIT-tablets vs monthly or weekly SCIT from a US patient perspective.

methodsWe carried out a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate-to-severe AR were included if they had not previously or were not currently receiving AIT. Three attributes were included in the design: the mode and frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co-payment.

resultsA total of 724 adults with AR and 665 caregivers of children with AR were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for SLIT-tablets compared with both weekly and monthly injections and for less risk of anaphylactic shock. Caregivers were more risk-averse than adults when choosing their treatment, and the younger the child, the more risk-averse the caregiver. The preference for SLIT-tablets was found for both monoallergic and polyallergic adults and caregivers of monoallergic and polyallergic children. Respondents not wanting AIT for free were more risk-averse than those indicating that they wanted AIT for free.

conclusionOur findings suggest that SLIT-tablets is the preferred route of administration for AIT among adults and caregivers of children with AR.

Indexed as

allergic rhinitisallergy immunotherapydiscrete choice experimentpatient preferencessubcutaneous immunotherapysublingual immunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID34819723
PMCPMC8608245
OpenAlexW3211513911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.