Continuous versus on-demand pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis: Evidence and practice

Cost-effectiveness of SQ® HDM SLIT-tablet in addition to pharmacotherapy for the treatment of house dust mite allergic rhinitis in Germany

Background

Allergic rhinitis is a global health problem that burdens society due to associated health care costs and its impact on health. Standardized quality (SQ^®) house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet is a sublingually administered allergy immunotherapy tablet for patients with persistent moderate to severe HDM allergic rhinitis despite use of allergy pharmacotherapy.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of SQ HDM SLIT-tablet in Germany for patients suffering from HDM allergic rhinitis.

Methods

A pharmacoeconomic analysis, based on data collected in a double-blinded, phase III randomized placebo-controlled trial (n=992), was undertaken to compare SQ HDM SLIT-tablet in addition to allergy pharmacotherapy to placebo plus allergy pharmacotherapy. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scores and health care resource use data recorded in the trial were applied to each treatment group and extrapolated over a nine-year time horizon. A series of scenarios were used to investigate the impact of changes on long-term patient health for both treatment groups, which was measured by annual changes in QALY scores. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results

In the base case analysis, compared with allergy pharmacotherapy, SQ HDM SLIT-tablet led to a QALY gain of 0.31 at an incremental cost of €2,276 over the nine-year time horizon, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7,519. The treatment was cost-effective for all scenarios analyzed; however, results were sensitive to changes in individual parameter values during the deterministic sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

SQ HDM SLIT-tablet in addition to pharmacotherapy is cost-effective compared with allergy pharmacotherapy plus placebo for the treatment of persistent moderate to severe HDM allergic rhinitis that is not well controlled by allergy pharmacotherapy.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Adherence to pharmacological treatment and specific immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis

The term compliance simply indicates how much doses of the prescribed medication are taken, whereas the term adherence implies also an agreement between patient and physician about the therapeutic plan, and it is therefore preferred. Adherence is a main problem in all long-term treatments. Thus, it represents a problem also in the case of rhinitis, expecially concerning specific immunotherapy that must be assumed continuously for several years. Many factors can affect the adherence, depending on patient, on treatment itself and on the healthcare context, and all those factors usually interact. The adherence measured in controlled trials is usually good, but this does not reflect what happens in real life, where adherence should be preferably measured. There are few data on the adherence in real life for pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis (e.g. nasal steroids or antihistamines), whereas more data are available for specific immunotherapy. In this latter case, in real life, adherence seems to be far from optimal, for both sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy, although the recent studies agree on the fact that some interventions (i.e. patients' education, strict follow-up, regular contacts) could effectively improve the adherence. In this article, the literature concerning the adherence to pharmacological treatments and immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis was searched and reviewed.

Safety considerations in the management of allergic diseases: focus on antihistamines

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs.

RESULTS

Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled exploratory study to evaluate the potential of pycnogenol for improving allergic rhinitis symptoms

The potential of Pycnogenol for relieving allergic rhinitis (birch pollen) symptoms was explored in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In 2008 19 subjects started treatment 3 weeks prior to the onset of birch pollen season in Ontario, Canada. While there was an improvement of eye and nasal symptoms with Pycnogenol, there was no significance versus placebo. It was postulated that Pycnogenol may require a lag-time between the start of therapy and the onset of action. Therefore 39 subjects were treated 5-8 weeks prior to the 2009 birch allergy season. The evaluation of subjects in 2009 showed much lower scores for eye (-35%) and nasal (-20.5%) symptoms with Pycnogenol compared with placebo. In succession of the allergy season birch specific IgE increased by 31.9% in the placebo group compared with only 19.4% in the Pycnogenol group. Detailed analysis suggested that symptom-relief was better the longer subjects were on Pycnogenol prior to the allergen exposure. The best results were found with subjects who took Pycnogenol 7-8 weeks ahead of the allergy season. With the limited number of 39 patients statistical predications were unattainable. In conclusion, Pycnogenol improved allergic rhinitis symptoms when supplementation was started at least 5 weeks before the onset of the allergy season.