-
Allergy Mar 2017The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of insect venom allergy. To inform this process, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching 15 international biomedical databases for published and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were descriptively summarized and, where possible, meta-analysed.
RESULTS
Our searches identified a total of 16 950 potentially eligible studies; of which, 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The available evidence was limited both in volume and in quality, but suggested that venom immunotherapy (VIT) could substantially reduce the risk of subsequent severe systemic sting reactions (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.26); meta-analysis showed that it also improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.79). Adverse effects were experienced in both the build-up and maintenance phases, but most were mild with no fatalities being reported. The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be cost-effective in those at high risk of repeated systemic sting reactions and/or impaired quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited available evidence suggested that VIT is effective in reducing severe subsequent systemic sting reactions and in improving disease-specific quality of life. VIT proved to be safe and no fatalities were recorded in the studies included in this review. The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established.
Topics: Allergens; Animals; Arthropod Venoms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Desensitization, Immunologic; Disease Management; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Insect Bites and Stings; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28120424
DOI: 10.1111/all.13077 -
PloS One 2015The safety of bee venom as a therapeutic compound has been extensively studied, resulting in the identification of potential adverse events, which range from trivial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The safety of bee venom as a therapeutic compound has been extensively studied, resulting in the identification of potential adverse events, which range from trivial skin reactions that usually resolve over several days to life-threating severe immunological responses such as anaphylaxis. In this systematic review, we provide a summary of the types and prevalence of adverse events associated with bee venom therapy.
METHODS
We searched the literature using 12 databases from their inception to June 2014, without language restrictions. We included all types of clinical studies in which bee venom was used as a key intervention and adverse events that may have been causally related to bee venom therapy were reported.
RESULTS
A total of 145 studies, including 20 randomized controlled trials, 79 audits and cohort studies, 33 single-case studies, and 13 case series, were evaluated in this review. The median frequency of patients who experienced adverse events related to venom immunotherapy was 28.87% (interquartile range, 14.57-39.74) in the audit studies. Compared with normal saline injection, bee venom acupuncture showed a 261% increased relative risk for the occurrence of adverse events (relative risk, 3.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.10 to 6.20) in the randomized controlled trials, which might be overestimated or underestimated owing to the poor reporting quality of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Adverse events related to bee venom therapy are frequent; therefore, practitioners of bee venom therapy should be cautious when applying it in daily clinical practice, and the practitioner's education and qualifications regarding the use of bee venom therapy should be ensured.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Bee Venoms; Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Risk
PubMed: 25996493
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126971 -
The Journal of Venomous Animals and... 2021Peptides obtained from different animal species have gained importance recently due to research that aims to develop biopharmaceuticals with therapeutic potential. In... (Review)
Review
Peptides obtained from different animal species have gained importance recently due to research that aims to develop biopharmaceuticals with therapeutic potential. In this sense, arthropod venoms have drawn attention, not only because of their toxicity but mainly for the search for molecules with various bioactivities, including anti-inflammatory activity. The purpose of the present study is to gather data available in the literature on new peptides derived from arthropod species with anti-inflammatory potential. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies on peptides from arthropods that display anti-inflammatory activity were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The bibliographic research started in 2020 and searched papers without a limit on the publication date. The articles were analyzed using a search string containing the following terms: "Peptides" and "Anti-inflammatory", in combinations such as "Ant", "Bee", "Wasp", "Crab", "Shrimp", "Scorpion", "Spider", "Tick" and "Centipedes". Besides, a search was carried out in the databases with the terms: "Peptides", "Antitumor", or "Anticancer", and "Arthropods". Articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria totalized 171, and these served for data extraction. Additionally, the present review included anti-inflammatory peptides with anticancer properties. Peptides with confirmed anti-inflammatory activity were from insects (ants, bees, and wasps), crustaceans (shrimp and crabs), arachnids (scorpions, spiders, and ticks), and centipedes. These arthropod peptides act mainly by decreasing pro-inflammatory cytokines as analyzed and . Some showed significant antineoplastic activity, working in essential cellular pathways against malignant neoplasms.
PubMed: 34795699
DOI: 10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2020-0152 -
Toxins Aug 2020Bee venom has been used to treat many diseases because of its anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. However, the secretions of bee venom can also cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Bee venom has been used to treat many diseases because of its anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. However, the secretions of bee venom can also cause life-threatening adverse reactions. The objective of this paper was to review the clinical effectiveness of bee venom and adverse events induced by bee venom, regardless of the disease. Four electronic databases were searched in April 2020. The reference lists of the retrieved articles and previous review articles were also hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using any type of bee venom other than live bee stings for the clinical treatment of any disease other than cancer were included. The studies were selected, the data were extracted, and the quality of the studies was assessed by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias standards. Twelve RCTs were included in this review-three on Parkinson's disease, four on arthralgia, four on musculoskeletal disorders, and one on polycystic ovary syndrome. The types of bee venom used were acupuncture injections, ultrasound gel, and an ointment. Six studies reported adverse events, and skin reactions such as pruritus and swelling were the most common. The large-scale clinical trials of bee venom therapy are needed to verify the statistical difference, and the reporting system for adverse events is also required to increase the safety of bee venom therapy.
Topics: Acupuncture Points; Acupuncture Therapy; Administration, Cutaneous; Adult; Bee Venoms; Female; Gels; Humans; Injections; Male; Middle Aged; Ointments; Phonophoresis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32872552
DOI: 10.3390/toxins12090558 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2012Each year in the UK, there are between two and nine deaths from anaphylaxis caused by bee and wasp venom. Anaphylactic reactions can occur rapidly following a sting and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Each year in the UK, there are between two and nine deaths from anaphylaxis caused by bee and wasp venom. Anaphylactic reactions can occur rapidly following a sting and can progress to a life-threatening condition within minutes. To avoid further reactions in people with a history of anaphylaxis to bee and wasp venom, the use of desensitisation, through a process known as venom immunotherapy (VIT), has been investigated and is in use in the UK. VIT consists of subcutaneous injections of increasing amounts of purified bee and/or wasp venom extract. Pharmalgen® products (ALK Abelló) have had UK marketing authorisation for VIT (as well as diagnosis) of allergy to bee venom (using Pharmalgen Bee Venom) and wasp venom (using Pharmalgen Wasp Venom) since March 1995.
OBJECTIVE
This review assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Pharmalgen in providing immunotherapy to individuals with a history of type 1 [immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated] systemic allergic reaction to bee and wasp venom.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search strategy using a combination of index terms (e.g. Pharmalgen) and free-text words (e.g. allerg$) was developed and used to interrogate the following electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library.
REVIEW METHODS
Papers were included if they studied venom immunotherapy using Pharmalgen (PhVIT) in patients who had previously experienced a systemic reaction to a bee and/or a wasp sting. Comparators were any alternative treatment options available in the NHS without VIT. Included outcomes were systemic reactions, local reactions, mortality, anxiety related to the possibility of future allergic reactions, health-related quality of life (QoL) and adverse reactions (ARs) to treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Because of the small number of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), no meta-analyses were conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PhVIT plus high-dose antihistamine (HDA) plus adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) plus avoidance advice in relation to two comparators.
RESULTS
A total of 1065 citations were identified, of which 266 full-text papers were obtained. No studies were identified that compared PhVIT with any of the outlined comparators. When these criteria were widened to include different protocols and types of PhVIT administration, four RCTs and five quasi-experimental studies were identified for inclusion. The quality of included studies was poor, and none was conducted in the UK. Eight studies reported re-sting data (systemic reactions ranged from 0.0% to 36.4%) and ARs (systemic reactions ranged from 0.0% to 38.1% and none was fatal). No included studies reported quality of life. No published economic evidence relevant to the decision problem was identified. The manufacturer of PhVIT did not submit any clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness evidence to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in support of PhVIT. The results of the Assessment Group's (AG) base-case analysis show that the comparison of PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus AAI + HDA yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,065,527 per QALY gained; PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus avoidance advice only yields an ICER of £7,627,835 per QALY gained. The results of the sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses showed that the results of the base-case economic evaluation were robust for every plausible change in parameter made. The results of the 'High Risk of Sting Patients' subgroup analysis show that PhVIT + HDA + AAI dominates both AAI + HDA and avoidance advice only (i.e. is less expensive and more effective). The 'VIT Anxiety QoL Improvement' subgroup analysis shows that PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus HDA + AAI has an ICER of £23,868 per QALY gained, and PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus avoidance advice only yields an ICER of £25,661 per QALY gained.
LIMITATIONS
This review is limited to the use of Pharmalgen in the treatment of hymenoptera venom allergy and therefore does not assess the effectiveness of VIT in general.
CONCLUSIONS
The current use of PhVIT in clinical practice in the NHS appears to be based on limited and poor-quality clinical effectiveness research. Available evidence indicates that sting reactions following the use of PhVIT are low and that the ARs related to treatment are minor and easily treatable. The results of the AG's de novo economic evaluation demonstrate that PhVIT + AAI + HDA compared with AAI + HDA and with avoidance advice only yields ICERs in the range of £8-20M per QALY gained. Two subgroups ('High Risk of Sting Patients' and 'VIT Anxiety QoL Improvement') were considered in the economic evaluation and the AG concludes that the use of PhVIT + AAI + HDA may be cost-effective in both groups. Future research should focus on clearly identifying groups of patients most likely to benefit from treatment and ensure that clinical practice is focussed on these groups. Furthermore, given the paucity of UK data in this area it would be informative if data could be collected routinely when VIT is administered in the NHS (e.g. rates of systemic adverse reactions to VIT, rates of systemic reactions to bee/wasp stings).
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Allergens; Anaphylaxis; Antigens, Dermatophagoides; Bee Venoms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Wasp Venoms; Young Adult
PubMed: 22409877
DOI: 10.3310/hta16120 -
Toxins Mar 2022Bee venom acupuncture (BVA) is an effective treatment method for various diseases. Bee venom, however, can cause adverse effects, even rarely including life-threatening... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bee venom acupuncture (BVA) is an effective treatment method for various diseases. Bee venom, however, can cause adverse effects, even rarely including life-threatening anaphylaxis, so safety-related evidence is required. In this study, we systematically estimated the incidence rate of anaphylaxis in response to BVA.
METHODS
We searched eight databases (MEDLINE (Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled, KISS, KMBASE, Koreamed, OASIS, and NDSL) and systematically reviewed the articles that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Among 225 potentially relevant articles, 49 were selected for this study. The overall incidence rate of anaphylaxis in response to BVA was 0.045% (95% CI 0.028-0.062). Women (0.083%, 95% CI 0.010-0.157) showed a higher incidence rate than men (0.019%, 95% CI -0.018 to 0.055), while the incidence for patients who had a skin test conducted (0.041%, 95% CI 0.011-0.072) was not significantly different compared to that obtained for patients for which there was no information about a skin test (0.047%, 95% CI 0.026-0.067). The publication year affected the incidence rate: it was highest before 1999 (1.099%, 95% CI -1.043 to 3.241), lower between 2000 and 2009 (0.049%, 95% CI 0.025-0.073), and lowest between 2010 and 2021 (0.037% 95% CI 0.014-0.060).
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we provide reference data about risk size and factors of BVA-related anaphylaxis, which is essentially required for BVA application in clinics.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Anaphylaxis; Bee Venoms; Female; Humans; Incidence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35448847
DOI: 10.3390/toxins14040238 -
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... Jan 2010The only effective treatment for patients who have severe reactions after Hymenoptera stings is venom immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to review the literature... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE
The only effective treatment for patients who have severe reactions after Hymenoptera stings is venom immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to review the literature to assess the effects of venom immunotherapy among patients presenting severe reactions after Hymenoptera stings.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Randomized controlled trials in the worldwide literature were reviewed. The manuscript was produced in the Discipline of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Universidade de São Paulo (USP).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials involving venom immunotherapy versus placebo or only patient follow-up were evaluated. The risk of systemic reactions after specific immunotherapy was evaluated by calculating odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
2,273 abstracts were identified by the keywords search. Only four studies were included in this review. The chi-square test for heterogeneity showed that two studies were homogeneous and could be included in a meta-analysis. By combining the two studies, the odds ratio became significant: 0.29 (0.10-0.87). However, analysis on the severity of the reactions after immunotherapy showed that the benefits may not be so significant because the reactions were mostly similar to or milder than the original reaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Specific immunotherapy should be recommended for adults and children with moderate to severe reactions, but there is no need to prescribe it for children with skin reactions alone, especially if the exposure is very sporadic. On the other hand, the risk-benefit relation should always be assessed in each case.
Topics: Animals; Arthropod Venoms; Bee Venoms; Chi-Square Distribution; Humans; Hymenoptera; Hypersensitivity; Immunotherapy; Insect Bites and Stings; Odds Ratio; Treatment Outcome; Wasp Venoms
PubMed: 20512278
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-31802010000100007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Acne is a chronic skin disease characterised by inflamed spots and blackheads on the face, neck, back, and chest. Cysts and scarring can also occur, especially in more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acne is a chronic skin disease characterised by inflamed spots and blackheads on the face, neck, back, and chest. Cysts and scarring can also occur, especially in more severe disease. People with acne often turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, and dietary modifications, because of their concerns about the adverse effects of conventional medicines. However, evidence for CAM therapies has not been systematically assessed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of any complementary therapies in people with acne vulgaris.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception up to 22 January 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014,Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), CINAHL (from 1981), Scopus (from 1966), and a number of other databases listed in the Methods section of the review. The Cochrane CAM Field Specialised Register was searched up to May 2014. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of articles for further references to relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (or the first phase data of randomised cross-over trials) of any kind of CAM, compared with no treatment, placebo, or other active therapies, in people with a diagnosis of acne vulgaris.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors collected data from each included trial and evaluated the methodological quality independently. They resolved disagreements by discussion and, as needed, arbitration by another author.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies, with a total of 3227 participants. We evaluated the majority as having unclear risk of selection, attrition, reporting, detection, and other biases. Because of the clinical heterogeneity between trials and the incomplete data reporting, we could only include four trials in two meta-analyses, with two trials in each meta-analysis. The categories of CAM included herbal medicine, acupuncture, cupping therapy, diet, purified bee venom (PBV), and tea tree oil. A pharmaceutical company funded one trial; the other trials did not report their funding sources.Our main primary outcome was 'Improvement of clinical signs assessed through skin lesion counts', which we have reported as 'Change in inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts', 'Change of total skin lesion counts', 'Skin lesion scores', and 'Change of acne severity score'. For 'Change in inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts', we combined 2 studies that compared a low- with a high-glycaemic-load diet (LGLD, HGLD) at 12 weeks and found no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in change in non-inflammatory lesion counts (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.07 to 2.29, P = 0.10, 75 participants, 2 trials, low quality of evidence). However, although data from 1 of these 2 trials showed benefit of LGLD for reducing inflammatory lesions (MD -7.60, 95% CI -13.52 to -1.68, 43 participants, 1 trial) and total skin lesion counts (MD -8.10, 95% CI -14.89 to -1.31, 43 participants, 1 trial) for people with acne vulgaris, data regarding inflammatory and total lesion counts from the other study were incomplete and unusable in synthesis.Data from a single trial showed potential benefit of tea tree oil compared with placebo in improving total skin lesion counts (MD -7.53, 95% CI -10.40 to -4.66, 60 participants, 1 trial, low quality of evidence) and acne severity scores (MD -5.75, 95% CI -9.51 to -1.99, 60 participants, 1 trial). Another trial showed pollen bee venom to be better than control in reducing numbers of skin lesions (MD -1.17, 95% CI -2.06 to -0.28, 12 participants, 1 trial).Results from the other 31 trials showed inconsistent effects in terms of whether acupuncture, herbal medicine, or wet-cupping therapy were superior to controls in increasing remission or reducing skin lesions.Twenty-six of the 35 included studies reported adverse effects; they did not report any severe adverse events, but specific included trials reported mild adverse effects from herbal medicines, wet-cupping therapy, and tea tree oil gel.Thirty trials measured two of our secondary outcomes, which we combined and expressed as 'Number of participants with remission'. We were able to combine 2 studies (low quality of evidence), which compared Ziyin Qinggan Xiaocuo Granule and the antibiotic, minocycline (100 mg daily) (worst case = risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.53, 2 trials, 206 participants at 4 weeks; best case = RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.82 to 9.06, 2 trials, 206 participants at 4 weeks), but there was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups.None of the included studies assessed 'Psychosocial function'.Two studies assessed 'Quality of life', and significant differences in favour of the complementary therapy were found in both of them on 'feelings of self-worth' (MD 1.51, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.14, P < 0.00001, 1 trial, 70 participants; MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.32, 1 trial, 46 participants) and emotional functionality (MD 2.20, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.65, P < 0.00001, 1 trial, 70 participants; MD 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.69, 1 trial, 46 participants).Because of limitations and concerns about the quality of the included studies, we could not draw a robust conclusion for consistency, size, and direction of outcome effects in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some low-quality evidence from single trials that LGLD, tea tree oil, and bee venom may reduce total skin lesions in acne vulgaris, but there is a lack of evidence from the current review to support the use of other CAMs, such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, or wet-cupping therapy, for the treatment of this condition. There is a potential for adverse effects from herbal medicines; however, future studies need to assess the safety of all of these CAM therapies. Methodological and reporting quality limitations in the included studies weakened any evidence. Future studies should be designed to ensure low risk of bias and meet current reporting standards for clinical trials.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Acupuncture Points; Acupuncture Therapy; Bee Venoms; Complementary Therapies; Humans; Plant Preparations; Quality of Life; Selection Bias; Tea Tree Oil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25597924
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009436.pub2 -
Toxins Apr 2020Centipedes are among the oldest venomous arthropods that use their venom to subdue the prey. The major components of centipede venom are a variety of...
Centipedes are among the oldest venomous arthropods that use their venom to subdue the prey. The major components of centipede venom are a variety of low-molecular-weight peptide toxins that have evolved to target voltage-gated ion channels to interfere with the central system of prey and produce pain or paralysis for efficient hunting. Peptide toxins usually contain several intramolecular disulfide bonds, which confer chemical, thermal and biological stability. In addition, centipede peptides generally have novel structures and high potency and specificity and therefore hold great promise both as diagnostic tools and in the treatment of human disease. Here, we review the centipede peptide toxins with reported effects on ion channels, including Nav, Kv, Cav and the nonselective cation channel polymodal transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1).
Topics: Animals; Arthropod Proteins; Arthropod Venoms; Bites and Stings; Chilopoda; Drug Discovery; Humans; Ion Channels; Membrane Transport Modulators; Protein Conformation; Signal Transduction; Structure-Activity Relationship
PubMed: 32260499
DOI: 10.3390/toxins12040230 -
Allergy Feb 2018The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis,...
BACKGROUND
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions.
METHODS
We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.
Topics: Arthropod Venoms; Asthma; Bee Venoms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Desensitization, Immunologic; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Rhinitis, Allergic; Wasp Venoms
PubMed: 28718981
DOI: 10.1111/all.13254