A non-stationary Markov model for economic evaluation of grass pollen allergoid immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION:Allergic rhino-conjunctivitis (ARC) is an IgE-mediated disease that occurs after exposure to indoor or outdoor allergens, or to non-specific triggers. Effective treatment options for seasonal ARC are available, but the economic aspects and burden of these therapies are not of secondary importance, also considered that the prevalence of ARC has been estimated at 23% in Europe. For these reasons, we propose a novel flexible cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) model, intended to provide healthcare professionals and policymakers with useful information aimed at cost-effective interventions for grass-pollen induced allergic rhino-conjunctivitis (ARC). METHODS:Treatments compared are: 1. no AIT, first-line symptomatic drug-therapy with no allergoid immunotherapy (AIT). 2. SCIT, subcutaneous immunotherapy. 3. SLIT, sublingual immunotherapy. The proposed model is a non-stationary Markovian model, that is flexible enough to reflect those treatment-related problems often encountered in real-life and clinical practice, but that cannot be adequately represented in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). At the same time, we described in detail all the structural elements of the model as well as its input parameters, in order to minimize any issue of transparency and facilitate the reproducibility and circulation of the results among researchers. RESULTS:Using the no AIT strategy as a comparator, and the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) as a statistic to summarize the cost-effectiveness of a health care intervention, we could conclude that: SCIT systematically outperforms SLIT, except when a full societal perspective is considered. For example, for T = 9 and a pollen season of 60 days, we have ICER = €16,729 for SCIT vs. ICER = €15,116 for SLIT (in the full societal perspective).For longer pollen seasons or longer follow-up duration the ICER decreases, because each patient experiences a greater clinical benefit over a larger time span, and Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALYs) gained per cycle increase accordingly.Assuming that no clinical benefit is achieved after premature discontinuation, and that at least three years of immunotherapy are required to improve clinical manifestations and perceiving a better quality of life, ICERs become far greater than €30,000.If the immunotherapy is effective only at the peak of the pollen season, the relative ICERs rise sharply. For example, in the scenario where no clinical benefit is present after premature discontinuation of immunotherapy, we have ICER = €74,770 for SCIT vs. ICER = €152,110 for SLIT.The distance between SCIT and SLIT strongly depends on under which model the interventions are meta-analyzed. CONCLUSIONS:Even though there is a considerable evidence that SCIT outperforms SLIT, we could not state that both SCIT and SLIT (or only one of these two) can be considered cost-effective for ARC, as a reliable threshold value for cost-effectiveness set by national regulatory agencies for pharmaceutical products is missing. Moreover, the impact of model input parameters uncertainty on the reliability of our conclusions needs to be investigated further