Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis: an indirect analysis of efficacy, safety and cost. Issue 3 (21st January 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dranitsaris, George; Ellis, Anne K.
• Is Part Of: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. Volume 20:Issue 3(2014)
• Page Start: 225
• Page End: 238
• Publication Date: 2014-01-21
• Subjects: Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.12112
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1356-1294

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="jep12112-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Rationale, aims and objectives</title> <p>The standard of preventive care for poorly controlled seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR) is subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with allergen extracts, administered in a physician's office. As an alternative to SCIT, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is now an option for patients with seasonal AR. Oralair™, a SLIT tablet containing freeze‐dried allergen extracts of five grasses [cocksfoot (<italic>Dactylis glomerata</italic>), meadow grass (<italic>Poa pratensis</italic>), rye grass (<italic>Lolium perenne</italic>), sweet vernal grass (<italic>Anthoxanthum odoratum</italic>) and timothy grass (<italic>Phleum pratense</italic>)], and Grazax™, a SLIT tablet containing a standardized extract of grass pollen allergen from timothy grass (<italic>P pratenase</italic>), are two such agents currently available in many countries. However, head‐to‐head comparative data are not available. In this study, an indirect comparison on efficacy, safety and cost was undertaken between Oralair™, Grazax™ and SCIT.</p> </sec> <sec id="jep12112-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>A systematic review was conducted for double‐blind placebo‐controlled randomized trials evaluating Oralair™, Grazax™ or SCIT in patients with grass‐induced seasonal AR. Using placebo as the common control, an indirect statistical comparison between treatments was performed using meta regression analysis with active drug as the primary independent variable. An economic analysis, which included both direct and indirect costs for the Canadian setting, was also undertaken.</p> </sec> <sec id="jep12112-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Overall, 20 placebo‐controlled trials met the study inclusion criteria. The indirect analysis suggested improved efficacy with Oralair™ over SCIT [standardized mean difference (SMD) in AR symptom control = −0.21; <italic>P</italic> = 0.007] and Grazax™ (SMD = −0.18; <italic>P</italic> = 0.018). In addition, there were no significant differences in the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events between therapies. Oralair™ was associated with cost savings against year‐round SCIT ($2471), seasonal SCIT ($948) and Grazax™ ($1168) during the first year of therapy.</p> </sec> <sec id="jep12112-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Oralair™ has at least non‐inferior efficacy and comparable safety against SCIT and Grazax™ at a lower annual cost.</p> </sec> </abstract>