Abstract
BackgroundAllergy immunotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis whose symptoms are unresolved with pharmacotherapy. Allergy immunotherapy for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis is available in three modalities: subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy as a tablet or drop. This study aimed to understand trends in allergy immunotherapy prescribing and practice patterns for grass allergies in adult and paediatric patients in Germany.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using IMS Disease Analyzer in Germany. Patients with an allergy immunotherapy prescription for grass pollen (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] classification code V01AA02) from September 2005 to December 2012 were included in the study. General Practitioners (GPs), dermatologists, Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT)-specialists, paediatricians and pneumologists were included as the allergy immunotherapy prescribing physicians in the study. Descriptive analyses were conducted on patient characteristics at index and prescribing physician specialty; a test for trend was conducted for timing of initiation of first allergy immunotherapy prescription in each annual prescribing season.ResultsEighteen thousand eight hundred fifty eligible patients were identified during the study period. The majority of patients received subcutaneous immunotherapy; however, the proportion of patients receiving sublingual immunotherapy tablets increased from 8 % in 2006/2007 to 29 % in 2011/2012 (p < 0.001). Initiation of subcutaneous immunotherapy and Oralair® generally peaked during each prescribing year in two seasons (September-October and January) while GRAZAX® prescriptions peaked in autumn (September-October). ENT-specialists and dermatologists were the largest allergy immunotherapy prescribers in adults, while paediatricians and ENT-specialists were the largest prescribers of allergy immunotherapy in paediatric patients.ConclusionsSubcutaneous immunotherapy remained the dominant allergy immunotherapy modality for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in Germany for adult and paediatric patients; however, there was a marked increase in proportion of patients receiving sublingual immunotherapy tablets from 2006/2007 to 2011/2012, after their introduction to the market in 2006. ENT-specialists, dermatologists and paediatricians were responsible for the majority of prescribing. The predominance of particular modalities within certain physician specialties likely reflects different treatment goals or needs.
Highlights
Allergy immunotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis whose symptoms are unresolved with pharmacotherapy
Age of patients was consistent between Allergy Immunotherapy (AIT) modalities, with a mean age of 12.1 years and 34.3 years in the paediatric and adult populations, respectively
A previous publication reported that approximately 25 % of AIT patients in Germany were treated with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets or SLIT-drops [25], whereas our study found that 33 % of patients received SLIT-tablets or SLIT-drops (2011/2012 prescribing year)
Summary
Allergy immunotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis whose symptoms are unresolved with pharmacotherapy. Allergy immunotherapy for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis is available in three modalities: subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy as a tablet or drop. This study aimed to understand trends in allergy immunotherapy prescribing and practice patterns for grass allergies in adult and paediatric patients in Germany. Allergy Immunotherapy (AIT) desensitizes the immune system to allergens (including grass pollen) and is a treatment option to alleviate AR symptoms when a patient is not adequately managed with symptomatic medication. AIT is effective and well tolerated in adults and children, and the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters recommends that AIT can be considered for patients who have demonstrable evidence of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies to clinically relevant allergens [16]. The comparative efficacy of SCIT and SLIT has not been established with direct comparative randomized controlled trials, the clinical efficacy of SLIT (irrespective of allergen) has been suggested to be similar to SCIT based on select open, controlled trials in an evidence review [17]; a review of meta-analyses has suggested greater efficacy of SCIT [18], while other studies have found no statistically significant difference between modalities [19]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
