Clinical observation and preliminary economic study of rush immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis
10.3760/cma.j.cn115330-20220104-00003
- VernacularTitle:变应性鼻炎冲击免疫治疗的临床观察和经济学初探
- Author:
Yang SHEN
1
;
Xia KE
;
Yucheng YANG
;
Jiangju HUANG
;
Jie LIU
;
Min ZHANG
;
Ziqi CHEN
;
Suling HONG
Author Information
1. 重庆医科大学附属第一医院耳鼻咽喉科，重庆 400016
- Keywords:
Allergic rhinitis;
Rush immunotherapy;
Safety;
Clinical efficacy;
Cost-effectiveness ratio
- From:
Chinese Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery
2022;57(12):1491-1496
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To observe the clinical efficacy, safety, compliance, and cost-effectiveness of rush immunotherapy (RIT) and conventional immunotherapy (CIT) in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), so as to evaluate the clinical significance of CIT and preliminarily explore its economic value.Methods:A study was conducted on 72 AR patients who had received specific immunotherapy from Oct 2019 to Jun 2020 in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, including 39 males and 33 females, aging 8 to 60 years. RIT or CIT was performed respectively according to the patients′ wishes. There were 35 cases in the RIT group and 37 cases in the CIT group, all subjects were followed up for 1 year. Visual analysis scale (VAS) and effectiveness were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy. Systemic adverse reactions were used to assess safety. Failure rate was calculated to evaluate the compliance. The cost and cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) were conducted to evaluate the health economics preliminarily.Results:After half a year and one year′s treatment, both RIT and CIT groups had significant clinical efficacy and RIT group had more significant clinical efficacy than CIT group at half a year (76.67% vs 46.67%, χ 2=7.37, P=0.007). During the dose accumulation phase, there was no significant difference in the incidence of systemic adverse reactions between the two groups (8.57% vs 8.10%, χ 2=0.05, P=0.943), while the drop-out rate in the RIT group was significantly lower than that in the CIT group (0 vs 13.51%, χ 2=5.08, P=0.024). After one year, the costs in RIT group were significantly higher ((8 163.08±452.67) yuan vs (7 385.87±369.92) yuan, t=-2.78, P=0.009), while there was no statistical differences in CER between the two groups ((3 298.06±1 374.09) yuan/point vs (3 154.38±1 532.51) yuan/point, t=-0.36, P=0.418). Conclusions:Both RIT and CIT are beneficial for AR, and they have similar clinical efficacy, safety, and CER. RIT is more effective in the early stage, with higher patient compliance. Thus, RIT is worth promoting and exploring in clinic.
