ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness of antihistaminics in adults' patients with allergic rhinitis.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAllergic rhinitis (AR) is highly prevalent worldwide, often leading to substantial healthcare costs and diminished patient quality of life. Although guidelines frequently recommend intranasal corticosteroids, oral second-generation antihistamines remain commonly used in many low- and middle-income countries. We performed a cost-utility analysis of newer-generation oral H1 antihistamines for adults with intermittent AR in Colombia. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 28-day decision-tree model compared multiple antihistamines' costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included clinical effectiveness and adverse-event probabilities from systematic reviews and network meta-analyses. All costs, expressed in 2024 US dollars (1 USD = 4,400 COP), were adjusted for inflation. Net monetary benefits (NMB) were calculated using willingness-to-pay thresholds for Colombia (US$ 5130). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in key parameters.
resultsCetirizine 10 mg and fexofenadine 180 mg were the only undominated strategies, exhibiting higher NMB values than other antihistamines. Deterministic analysis showed that cetirizine had a lower total cost (22.15 USD) and an ICER of 349.62 USD per QALY gained. In contrast, fexofenadine provided a slight gain in effectiveness at a modest incremental cost. Probabilistic analysis confirmed fexofenadine as cost-effective option across a wide range of thresholds, with cetirizine remaining a strong contender at lower thresholds.
conclusionIn this cost-utility analysis of oral H1 antihistamines for adults with intermittent allergic rhinitis in Colombia, cetirizine 10 mg and fexofenadine 180 mg emerged as the cost-effective options, offering high net monetary benefits and remaining undominated in deterministic and probabilistic analyses.
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.