ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Modelling the Costs of Sublingual Immunotherapy versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Based on Clinical Appointments and Impacts of Patient Travel in Sweden.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: In Sweden, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is available as either subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) injections or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets and is used to treat moderate-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This study sought to determine direct and indirect annual costs stemming from treatment-related travel, appointments, waiting times and medication costs, before exploring likely CO Methods: A model was developed in Python to capture each category of costs in the target patient population. Absenteeism costs arising from treatment-related travel were determined by obtaining average hourly pay data from Swedish Government sources. Absenteeism costs were also calculated for 30-minute post-dose observation times, which occurred during one clinical appointment for SLIT patients, and all clinical appointments for SCIT patients. Clinical appointment costs were obtained from healthcare price lists for Sweden. Medication costs were retrieved from the Pharmaceutical Specialities in Sweden (Fass) website, and treatment doses required for SCIT and SLIT-tablets were determined based on product labels and previously-calculated dosage regimes. High-cost protection and reimbursement scheme payment caps were applied when determining patient appointment and medication costs, respectively, and when identifying financial burdens for individual payers. Results: Mean total annual costs for SCIT were Swedish Krona (SEK) 604.1 million (m), with clinical appointments contributing the largest share of these costs (52.7%), followed by medication (34.4%), travel-related absenteeism (8.9%), waiting time-related absenteeism (2.7%) and private transportation (1.3%). Mean total annual costs for SLIT-tablets were SEK 336.2m. Medication contributed the most to these costs (72.3%), followed by clinical appointments (22.7%), travel-related absenteeism (3.8%), waiting time-related absenteeism (0.6%) and private transportation (0.6%). Conclusion: For patients with moderate-severe AR receiving AIT in Sweden, SLIT-tablets displayed large potential cost savings to patients, the healthcare system, and the government, whilst possessing reduced societal costs of carbon emissions relative to SCIT.
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.