Hungarian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2014-Jun

Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis: an indirect analysis of efficacy, safety and cost.

Csak regisztrált felhasználók fordíthatnak cikkeket
Belépés Regisztrálás
A hivatkozás a vágólapra kerül
George Dranitsaris
Anne K Ellis

Kulcsszavak

Absztrakt

OBJECTIVE

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 (Dactylis glomerata), meadow grass (Poa pratensis), rye grass (Lolium perenne), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and timothy grass (Phleum pratense)], and Grazax, a SLIT tablet containing a standardized extract of grass pollen allergen from timothy grass (P pratenase), 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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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; P = 0.007] and Grazax (SMD = -0.18; P = 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Oralair has at least non-inferior efficacy and comparable safety against SCIT and Grazax at a lower annual cost.

Csatlakozzon
facebook oldalunkhoz

A legteljesebb gyógynövény-adatbázis, amelyet a tudomány támogat

  • Működik 55 nyelven
  • A tudomány által támogatott gyógynövényes kúrák
  • Gyógynövények felismerése kép alapján
  • Interaktív GPS térkép - jelölje meg a gyógynövényeket a helyszínen (hamarosan)
  • Olvassa el a keresésével kapcsolatos tudományos publikációkat
  • Keresse meg a gyógynövényeket hatásuk szerint
  • Szervezze meg érdeklődését, és naprakész legyen a hírkutatással, a klinikai vizsgálatokkal és a szabadalmakkal

Írjon be egy tünetet vagy betegséget, és olvassa el azokat a gyógynövényeket, amelyek segíthetnek, beírhat egy gyógynövényt, és megtekintheti azokat a betegségeket és tüneteket, amelyek ellen használják.
* Minden információ publikált tudományos kutatáson alapul

Google Play badgeApp Store badge