4.3 Article

Potential Cost Savings by Switching from Subcutaneous to Intralymphatic Insect Venom Immunotherapy

Journal

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000531332

Keywords

Venom immunotherapy; Intralymphatic immunotherapy; Cost analysis; Allergy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIT can be used to treat IgE-mediated bee venom allergy, with SCIT being time and cost intensive. ILIT offers a potential reduction in treatment costs due to fewer injections and shorter therapy duration. This study shows a potential two-fold reduction in treatment costs when switching from SCIT to ILIT for bee venom allergy.
Introduction: IgE-mediated bee venom allergy can be treated with allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is time and cost intensive due to the repeated consultations, but the costs are justified by the high risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. However, intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) offers potential to reduce treatment costs due to a significant reduction in injections and a shorter duration of therapy. Therefore, we calculated the cost savings that arise when switching from SCIT to ILIT. Methods: Treatment protocols for ILIT were based on previous ILIT studies. Treatment protocols for SCIT were based on routine treatment at the University Hospital Zurich (USZ). The treatment costs were calculated based on the internal hospital information system (KISIM). Results: The calculations revealed a potential two-fold reduction in treatment costs if ILIT is used instead of SCIT in patients with bee venom allergy. The costs could be reduced from EUR 11,612.59 with SCIT to EUR 5,942.15 with ILIT over 5 years. Conclusions: This study shows that bee venom ILIT has a cost-benefit potential for health insurances and patients, which should encourage further ILIT studies and which should be taken into account when considering future implementation of ILIT in the standard care of venom allergy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available