Pharmacoeconomic assessment of specific immunotherapy versus current symptomatic treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma in France.

OBJECTIVES The therapeutic benefit of specific immunotherapy (SIT) in allergic rhinitis and asthma has been endorsed by expert consensus. This study compared the cost/efficacy (C/E) of SIT with current symptomatic treatments (CST) for allergic rhinitis and asthma. METHODS A C/E analysis was performed using a decision tree model. The decision tree and medical and economic hypotheses were defined by a panel of experts. The perspective adopted was that of the French Social Security. The costs and efficacy of SIT and CST were compared for dust-mite and pollen allergies, in adults and children. Direct medical costs included diagnosis and follow-up, consultations, CST and SIT. End-point economic criteria were cost per stabilised patient and cost per asthma case avoided. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each model. RESULTS In adults, the incremental costs per asthma case avoided with injectable SIT were 393 Euro and 1327 Euro for dust-mite and pollen allergy, respectively, over a 6-year period. For sublingual SIT, the costs per asthma case avoided were 3158 Euro and 1708 Euro, respectively. In children, over a 7-year period, the incremental costs per asthma case avoided with injectable SIT were 583 Euro and 597 Euro for dust-mite and pollen allergy, respectively. For sublingual SIT the incremental costs were 3938 Euro and 824 Euro. CONCLUSION Compared to CST, SIT is a cost-effective treatment in pollen and dust-mite-induced allergic rhinitis and asthma. Sublingual SIT is an attractive option in pollen-induced rhinitis, particularly in children. SIT appears to be an economically relevant strategy compared to CST.