MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202332854 · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2015.21.11.982

Administration and Burden of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in U.S. and Canadian Clinical Practice

2015· article· en· W2202332854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven W. Blume, Karen Yeomans, Felicia Allen‐Ramey, Nancy Smith, Harold Kim, Richard F. Lockey, Michael B. Nichol

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdministration (probate law)ImmunotherapyMEDLINEFood and drug administrationClinical PracticeDermatologyIntensive care medicineFamily medicineImmunologyPharmacologyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is the only available treatment that alters the natural course of allergies and has possible disease-modifying effects. AIT is administered primarily via subcutaneous injection delivered in a physician’s office. Few studies have been conducted in the United States or Canada to evaluate the costs of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe SCIT administration processes, resources, and costs and (b) characterize the patient population receiving SCIT. METHODS: A multisite, prospective, observational time and motion study was conducted. Injection and wait times were collected by a third-party observer on 1 visit for each patient. Extract preparation processes were also observed. Site staff reported on treatment protocols, administrative time, supplies, and patient medical history. Patients responded to questionnaires on demographics, reasons for treatment, medication use, productivity, and travel time. Costs were estimated by applying unit costs to the time observations and the patient- and staff-reported data. RESULTS: A total of 670 SCIT patients were enrolled at 6 sites in the United States and 6 sites in Canada. Average age in the United States was 41 years (SD = 18) and 44 years (15) in Canada, with 10% of the patients aged ≥ 65 years. Annual incomes were over $100,000 for 40% of U.S. patients and 30% of Canadian patients. U.S. patients had over 4 times as many different allergens in their SCIT treatments as Canadian patients, with a mean of 18 versus 4. The most common reasons reported for starting SCIT was a “desire to cure allergies once and for all” (73%) and that “symptoms are not improved by allergy medications” (60%). Percentages of patients taking allergy medications in the 4 weeks prior to observation were 86% in the United States and 66% in Canada: antihistamines 75% United States, 54% Canada; inhaled corticosteroids 32% United States, 22% Canada. The predominant comorbidity was asthma, 43% United States, 24% Canada. Site protocols for build-up treatment phases were 1 to 2 injections per week for an average of 25 weeks (range 12-52). Maintenance phases were 1 injection every 3 to 4 weeks for an average of 4 years (range 2.5-5). Eight of the sites had total mean staff times per injection visit of 7 to 22 minutes; 1 site averaged fewer minutes, and 3 sites averaged more. Total direct medical costs were an average of $30 for Canadian patients per visit and $32 per visit for U.S. patients, half accounted for by the cost of the extract. Pre- and postinjection administrative tasks were the second largest driver of direct costs. Total injection visit-related time for patients, including round-trip travel time, averaged about 80 minutes per visit in the United States and in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses revealed substantial variation in SCIT regimens among sites, but the sites had commonalities in the injection process components. SCIT requires patient commitment to a long-term treatment regimen involving numerous clinic visits and resources for administration. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Merck & Co. Blume is an employee of Evidera, which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government, and nongovernment organizations. In his salaried position, he works with a variety of companies and organizations and is precluded from receiving payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered. Evidera was commissioned by Merck for this work. Yeomans is an employee of United BioSource Corporation, which was also commissioned by Merck for this work. Allen-Ramey is a shareholder and employee of Merck & Co. Smith was working under a contract with Agile-1 at Merck. Kim has participated in advisory boards and speaker bureaus for Merck. Lockey consults and participates in clinical research projects with Merck. Nichol received financial support from Merck for his scientific consultation on this study. The authors have no other conflicts of interest in this work. Study design and concept were created by Yeomans, Allen-Ramey, Blume, and Kim, assisted by Smith. Yeoman took the lead in data collection, along with Smith and Blume. Data interpretation was performed by Blume, Yeomans, and Allen-Ramey, with assistance from Kim, Lockey, and Nichol. The manuscript was written by Yeomans, Allen-Ramey, and Blume, with assistance from Lockey and Nichol, and revised by Kim, Lockey, and Nichol, with assistance from Yeomans and Blume.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty PharmacySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207