A comparative health economic evaluation of the SQ-standardised grassallergy immunotherapy tablet and subcutaneous immunotherapy in thetreatment of grass pollen induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitisSM Ronborg 1 , UG Svendsen 2 , JS Micheelsen 3 , L Ytte 4 , J Riis Treloggen 5 , JN Andreasen 5 (presenting), L Ehlers 61The Pulmonology and Allergy Clinic of Copenhagen, Denmark; 2 Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 3 Private ENT practice, Birkerød,Denmark; 4 General practitioner, Humlebæk, Denmark; 5 Market Access, <strong>ALK</strong>, Hørsholm, Denmark; 6 Aalborg University, DenmarkGrass AITBackgroundAllergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) constitutes a huge burdenfor the society. The disease prevalence is increasing andapp. 20-25% of the European population suffer fromrespiratory allergies including ARC. The majority of thepatients are treated with symptomatic pharmacotherapy;however, a large proportion remains uncontrolled despitethe use of such treatments. Specific immunotherapy (SIT)is the only treatment documented to target the underlyingallergic disease and activate immunomodulatorymechanisms leading to a sustained effect after completionof treatment. Based on Danish societal and healthcareperspective, this analysis demonstrates the economicconsequences if patients with grass pollen induced ARCuncontrolled on symptomatic medications are treated witha grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT), instead of thecurrently established clinical practice of subcutaneousimmunotherapy (SCIT).which concluded that the clinical effect of AIT is similar inmagnitude to that observed for SCIT in grass pollen inducedARC patients with similar disease severity. The healthcareutilisation was measured in physical units based on nationalguidelines, literature reviews and expert opinions. Thevaluation in unit costs was based on drug tariffs, physicianfee structures and wage statistics.ResultTreating ARC patients with the grass AIT instead of SCITresults in a significantly reduced number of physician visitsleading to a reduction in direct treatment costs, patientbornecosts and indirect costs. The expected reductionin direct treatment costs is €1,289 per patient during atreatment course. If the societal perspective is included,the reduction in costs is €3,723 per patient. The sensitivityanalysis confirms the robustness of the results.MethodA cost minimisation analysis (CMA) was applied comparingthe SQ-standardised grass AIT (Grazax ® , Phleum pratense,75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU, <strong>ALK</strong>, Denmark) with SCIT (Phleumpratense, alum absorbed depot extract, maintenancedose of 100,000 SQ-U, <strong>ALK</strong>, Denmark). The choice of CMAwas based on a review publication and a meta-analysis,ConclusionIn patients with grass pollen induced ARC, this costminimisation analysis shows that allergy treatment withthe SQ-standardised grass AIT reduces both the directand indirect treatment costs compared with SCIT. Thus,the SQ-standardised grass AIT is a cost saving alternativeto SCIT both from a societal and healthcare perspective.24Abstract number: 1671. Session date and time: Tuesday 14 June, 12.00 - 13.30Session: Poster session – Patient recorded outcomes and other paraclinical aspects in immunology. Session room: Rumeli Hall
Grass AIT25