Efficacy, patients' perception, and cost of medication in allergic rhinitis with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.12932/AP-040320-0781
Karnsinee Thanborisutkul, Nantika Khodtecha, Prapasri Kulalert, Paskorn Sritipsukho, Orapan Poachanukoon, Sira Nanthapisal
{"title":"Efficacy, patients' perception, and cost of medication in allergic rhinitis with subcutaneous immunotherapy.","authors":"Karnsinee Thanborisutkul,&nbsp;Nantika Khodtecha,&nbsp;Prapasri Kulalert,&nbsp;Paskorn Sritipsukho,&nbsp;Orapan Poachanukoon,&nbsp;Sira Nanthapisal","doi":"10.12932/AP-040320-0781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the allergic inflammation of nasal mucosa. Treatment of AR includes pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is indicated in inadequate disease control, patient's preference, or impossible allergen avoidance. SCIT is an effective treatment but its cost is comparatively high. Efficacy, patient perception, and cost of medication are rarely explored in Asia.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To study efficacy, patient perception, and cost-benefit of SCIT in AR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a descriptive cross-sectional study at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand. AR patients who had been receiving SCIT were interview. Current and recall of AR total symptom score (TSS), quality of life, and perception were scored. Cost of medications before SCIT and current cost were reviewed from the medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 142 patients were enrolled. Sixty-eight patients (47.9%) received single allergen; house dust mite was the most common allergen. The median of maintenance phase was 47 months, range 15-142 months. The mean of current TSS was significantly lower than mean TSS before SCIT. Forty-two patients (29.6%) had discontinued SCIT on the day of the interview. After discontinuation of SCIT, TSS was still lower than TSS before SCIT. The average cost of medications including SCIT was lower than that of before SCIT with an average difference of 254.2 USD/year. Sixteen patients (11.3%) experienced systemic reaction, 8 of which had reaction during rush immunotherapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SCIT is an effective, cost-saving and safe treatment option for AR. Rush immunotherapy can reduce duration of build-up phase but increase the risk of systemic reaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12932/AP-040320-0781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the allergic inflammation of nasal mucosa. Treatment of AR includes pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is indicated in inadequate disease control, patient's preference, or impossible allergen avoidance. SCIT is an effective treatment but its cost is comparatively high. Efficacy, patient perception, and cost of medication are rarely explored in Asia.

Objective: To study efficacy, patient perception, and cost-benefit of SCIT in AR.

Methods: We performed a descriptive cross-sectional study at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand. AR patients who had been receiving SCIT were interview. Current and recall of AR total symptom score (TSS), quality of life, and perception were scored. Cost of medications before SCIT and current cost were reviewed from the medical records.

Results: A total of 142 patients were enrolled. Sixty-eight patients (47.9%) received single allergen; house dust mite was the most common allergen. The median of maintenance phase was 47 months, range 15-142 months. The mean of current TSS was significantly lower than mean TSS before SCIT. Forty-two patients (29.6%) had discontinued SCIT on the day of the interview. After discontinuation of SCIT, TSS was still lower than TSS before SCIT. The average cost of medications including SCIT was lower than that of before SCIT with an average difference of 254.2 USD/year. Sixteen patients (11.3%) experienced systemic reaction, 8 of which had reaction during rush immunotherapy.

Conclusions: SCIT is an effective, cost-saving and safe treatment option for AR. Rush immunotherapy can reduce duration of build-up phase but increase the risk of systemic reaction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皮下免疫疗法治疗过敏性鼻炎的疗效、患者认知和药物成本。
背景:变应性鼻炎(AR)是鼻黏膜的变态反应性炎症。AR的治疗包括药物治疗和过敏原免疫治疗。皮下免疫疗法(SCIT)适用于疾病控制不足、患者偏好或不可能避免过敏原的情况。SCIT是一种有效的治疗方法,但其成本相对较高。疗效、患者认知和药物成本在亚洲很少被探讨。目的:研究SCIT在AR中的疗效、患者感知和成本效益。方法:我们在泰国法政大学医院进行了一项描述性横断面研究。对接受SCIT的AR患者进行访谈。对AR症状总分(TSS)、生活质量和感知的现状和回忆进行评分。SCIT前的药物成本和当前成本从医疗记录中进行审查。结果:共有142名患者入选。68例(47.9%)患者接受单一过敏原治疗;屋尘螨是最常见的过敏原。维持期的中位数为47个月,范围为15-142个月。当前TSS的平均值显著低于SCIT前的平均TSS。42名患者(29.6%)在访谈当天停止了SCIT。停药后TSS仍低于停药前的TSS。包括SCIT在内的药物平均成本低于SCIT前,平均差异为254.2美元/年。16名患者(11.3%)出现全身反应,其中8名患者在紧急免疫治疗期间出现反应。结论:SCIT是一种有效、节省成本和安全的AR治疗选择。快速免疫疗法可以缩短集结期的持续时间,但增加全身反应的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1