PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 345–361 | Cite as

The Economic Burden of Allergic Rhinitis

A Critical Evaluation of the Literature
  • Shelby D. Reed
  • Todd A. Lee
  • Douglas C. McCrory
Review Article

Abstract

Although a large number of economic analyses of allergic rhinitis have been published, there are relatively few empirically based studies, particularly outside the US. The majority of these analyses can be classified as burden-of-illness studies. Most estimates of the annual cost of allergic rhinitis range from $US2–5 billion (2003 values). The wide range of estimates can be attributed to differences in identifying patients with allergic rhinitis, differences in cost assignment, limitations associated with available data and difficulties in assigning indirect costs (associated with reduced productivity) of allergic rhinitis.

Approximately one-third of burden-of-illness studies include direct and indirect costs of allergic rhinitis, about one-third focus on direct costs only, and the remaining one-third focus exclusively on indirect costs due to reduced productivity. Indirect costs attributable to allergic rhinitis were higher in studies only estimating indirect costs ($US5.5–9.7 billion) than in those estimating both direct and indirect costs ($US1.7–4.3 billion).

Although there are many economic evaluations of allergic rhinitis treatments in the published medical literature, very few represent formal cost-effectiveness evaluations that compare the incremental costs and benefits of alternative treatment strategies. Those that are incremental cost-effectiveness analyses have several limitations, including small samples, short study periods and the lack of a standardized measure of effectiveness.

To date, the medical literature is lacking a comprehensive economic evaluation of general treatment strategies for allergic rhinitis. In undertaking such an analysis, serious consideration must be given to the study population of interest, the choice of appropriate comparators, the perspective from which the analysis is conducted, the target audience, the changing healthcare marketplace and the selection of a measure of effectiveness that incorporates both positive and negative aspects of treatments for allergic rhinitis.

Future work would benefit from the development of a consensus on a summary measure of effectiveness that could be used in cost-effectiveness analyses of therapies for allergic rhinitis as well as additional empirical work to measure the association between severity of disease and its impact on worker productivity.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellanti JA, Wallerstedt DB. Allergic rhinitis update: epidemiology and natural history. Allergy Asthma Proc 2000; 21: 367–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sly RM. Changing prevalence of allergic rhinitis and asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999;82: 233–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schoenwetter WF. Allergic rhinitis: epidemiology and natural history. Allergy Asthma Proc 2000; 21: 1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalyoncu AF, Demir AU, Ozcakar B, et al. Asthma and allergy in Turkish university students: two cross-sectional surveys 5 years apart. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2001; 29: 264–71Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Linneberg A, Nielsen NH, Madsen F, et al. Increasing prevalence of specific IgE to aeroallergens in an adult population: two cross-sectional surveys 8 years apart: the Copenhagen Allergy Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 106: 247–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McMenamin P. Costs of hay fever in the United States in 1990. Ann Allergy 1994; 73: 35–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malone DC, Lawson KA, Smith DH, et al. A cost of illness study of allergic rhinitis in the United States. J Allergy Clin Immmol l997; 99: 22–7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mackowiak IT. The health and economic impact of rhinitis. Am J Manag Care 1997; 3: S8-S18Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baraniuk JM, Meltzer EO, Spector SL. Impact of allergic rhinitis and related airway disorders. J Respir Dis 1996; 17 Suppl.: 511–23Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Storms W, Meltzer EO, Nathan RA, et al. The economic impact of allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997; 99: S820–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ray NF, Baraniuk IN, Tharrer M, et al. Direct expenditures for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in 1996, including the contributions of related airway illnesses. J Allergy Clin Immmol 1999; 103: 401–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Law AW, Reed SD, Sundy J, et al. Direct costs of allergic rhinitis in the United States: estimates from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003; 111: 296–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juniper EF. Measuring health-related quality of life in rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997; 99: S742–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fineman SM. The burden of allergic rhinitis: beyond dollars and cents. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002; 88: 2–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    BlancPD, TrupinL, Eisner M, et al. The work impact of asthma and rhinitis: findings from a population-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 610–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ross RN. The costs of allergic rhinitis. Am J Manag Care 1996; 2: 285–90Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crystal-Peters J, Crown WH, Goetzel RZ, et al. The cost of productivity losses associated with allergic rhinitis. Am J Manag Care 2000; 6: 373–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kessler RC, Almeida DM, Berglund P, et al. Pollen and mold exposure impairs the work performance of employees with allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2001; 87: 289–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Management of allergic rhinitis in the working-age population. Evidence report/technology assessment: number 67. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2003 Feb. AHRQ Publication No. 03-E013Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D’ Alonzo Jr GE. Scope and impact of allergic rhinitis. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2002; 102 (6 Suppl. 2): 52–6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiner JM, Abramson MJ, Puy RM. Intranasal corticosteroids versus oral HI receptor antagonists in allergic rhinitis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1998; 317: 1624–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yanez A, Rodrigo GJ. Intranasal corticosteroids versus topical HI receptor antagonists for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002; 89: 479–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen LP, Dahl R. Comparison of intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines in allergic rhinitis: a review of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Respir Med 2003: 2 (1): 55–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stempel DA, Thomas M. Treatment of allergic rhinitis: an evidence-based evaluation of nasal corticosteroids versus nonsedating antihistamines. Am J Manag Care 1998; 4: 89–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Management of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis. Evidence reportftechnology assessment: number 54. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2002 May. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E024Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Corren J. Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: how do different agents compare? J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 104 (4 Pt 1): Sl44–9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nielsen LP, Mygind N, Dahl R. Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: superior relief? Drugs 2001; 61: 1563–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Allen DB. Systemic effects of intranasal steroids: an endocrinologist’s perspective. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 106 (4 Suppl.): S179–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lumry WR. A review of the preclinical and clinical data of newer intranasal steroids used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999 Oct; 104 (4 Pt 1): S150–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pedersen S. Assessing the effect of intranasal steroids on growth. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108 (1 Suppl.): S40–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Szefler SJ. Pharmacokinetics of intranasal corticosteroids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108 (1 Suppl.): S26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mattila MJ, Paakkari I. Variations among non-sedating antihistamines: are there real differences? Eur J Clin Pharmacoll999; 55: 85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bradley CM, Nicholson AN. Studies on the central effects of the HI-antagonist, loratadine. Eur J Clin Phannacol 1987; 32: 419–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hindmarch I, Shamsi Z. The effects of single and repeated administration of ebastine on cognition and psychomotor performance in comparison to triprolidine and placebo in healthy volunteers. Curr Med Res Opin 2001; 17 (4): 273–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kerr JS, Dunmore C, Hindmarch I. The psychomotor andcognitive effects of a new antihistamine, mizolastine, compared to terfenadine, triprolidine and placebo in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 47: 331–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simons FE, Fraser TG, Reggin JD, et al. Comparison of the central nervous system effects produced by six HI-receptor antagonists. Clin Exp Allergy 1996; 26: 1092–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shamsi Z, Kimber S, Hindmarch I. An investigation into the effects of cetirizine on cognitive function and psychomotor performance in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 56: 865–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hindmarch I, Shamsi Z, Stanley N, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of the effects of fexofenadine, loratadine and promethazine on cognitive and psychomotor function. Br J Clin PharmacoI1999; 48: 200–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yanez A, Rodrigo GJ. Intranasal corticosteroids versus topical HI receptor antagonists for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002; 89: 479–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schramm B, Ehlken B, Smala A, et al. Cost of illness of atopic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis in Germany: I-year retrospective study. Eur Respir J 2003; 21: 116–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Trotter JP. The treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: cost implications of pharmacotherapy for managed care. Manag Care Interface 2000; 13: 60–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liao E, Leahy M, Cummins G. The costs of nonsedating antihistamine therapy for allergic rhinitis in managed care: an updated analysis. Am J Manag Care 2001; 7: S459–68Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee J, Cummins G, Okamoto L. A descriptive analysis of the use and cost of new-generation antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a retrospective database analysis. Am J Manag Care 2001; 7 (4 Suppl.): S103–12Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dykewicz MS, Fineman S, Skoner DP, et al. Diagnosis and management of rhinitis: complete guidelines of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998; 81 (5 Pt 2): 478–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang DY, Niti M, Smith JD, et al. Rhinitis: do diagnostic criteria affect the prevalence and treatment? Allergy 2002; 57: 150–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Carvalho N, Fernandez-Benitez M, Cascante L, et al. International study of asthma and allergies in childhood: results on rhinitis of first phase in Pamplona, Spain. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2000; 28: 207–12Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Asher MI, Barry D, Clayton T, et al. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase One. The burden of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivities and atopic eczema in children and adolescents in six New Zealand centres: ISAAC Phase One. N Z Med J 2001; 114: 114–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vanna AT, Yamada E, Arruda LK, et al. International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood: validation of the rhinitis symptom questionnaire and prevalence of rhinitis in schoolchildren in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2001; 12: 95–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Akcakaya N, Kulak K, Hassanzadeh A, et al. Prevalence of bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis in Istanbul school children. Eur J Epidemiol 2000; 16: 693–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yawn BP, Yunginger JW, Wollan PC, et al. Allergic rhinitis in Rochester, Minnesota residents with asthma: frequency and impact on health care charges. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 103: 54–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ward MM, Javitz HS, Smith WM, et al. Lost income and work limitations in persons with chronic respiratory disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 260–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tanner LA, Reilly M, Meltzer EO, et al. Effect offexofenadine HCI on quality of life and work, classroom, and daily activity impainnent in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Am J Manag Care 1999; 5: S235–47Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Crown WH. Productivity measurement in pharmaceutical studies. Drug Benefit Trends 2000; 12: 5BH–8BHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Greenberg PE, Birnbaum HG, Kessler RC, et al. Impact of illness and its treatment on workplace costs: regulatory and measurement issues. J Occup Environ Med 2001; 43: 56–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    The Gallup Organization Inc. Survey of attitudes and experiences of allergy sufferers. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization Inc., 1989 DecGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reilly MC, Tanner A, Meltzer EO. Work, classroom and activity impairment instruments: validation studies in allergic rhinitis. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 11: 278–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Meltzer EO, Casale TB, Nathan RA, et al. Once-daily fexofenadine HCI improves quality of life and reduces work and activity impainnent in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999; 83: 311–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sussman GL, Mason J, Compton D, et al. The efficacy and safety offexofenadine HCI and pseudoephedrine, alone and in combination, in seasonal allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 104: 100–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pransky G, Finkelstein SN, Berndt E, et al. Measuring health impacts on work performance: comparing subjective and objective reports [abstract]. Value Health 2002; 5: 448–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cockburn JM, Bailit HL, Berndt ER, et al. Loss of work productivity due to illness and medical treatment. J Occup Environ Med 1999; 41: 948–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen CY, et al. The impact of allergies and allergy treatment on worker productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2001; 43: 64–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Leickly FE, Sears-Ewald D, Ownby DR. A comperative costeffectiveness study of two treatment modalities for ragweed hay fever. Am J Rhinol 1989; 3: 99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kozma CM, Schulz RM, Sclar DA, et al. Acomparison of costs and efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clin Tiler 1996; 18: 334–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Keith PK, Haddon J, Birch S. A cost-benefit analysis using a willingness-to-pay questionnaire of intranasal budesonide for seasonal allergic rhinitis: Rhinocort Study Group. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2000; 84: 55–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schadlich PK, Brecht JG. Economic evaluation of specific immmotherapy versus symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis in Germany. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (1): 37–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Stahl E, van Rompay W, Wang EC, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide aqueous nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2000; 84: 397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Donahue JG, Greineder DK, Connor-Lacke L, et al. Utilization and cost of immmotherapy for allergic asthma and rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999; 82: 339–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sullivan SD, Weiss KB. Health economics of asthma and rhinitis: II. Assessing the value of interventions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 107: 203–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Juniper EF, Thompson AK, Ferrie PJ, et al. Validation of the standardized version of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 104: 364–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH. Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in rhinoconjunctivitis. Clin Exp Allergy 1991; 21: 77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. Interpretation of rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire data. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996; 98: 843–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    de Graaf-in’t Veld T, Koenders S, Garrelds JM, et al. The relationships between nasal hyperreactivity, quality oflife, and nasal symptoms in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996; 98: 508–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diener F, et al. Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 693–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shelby D. Reed
    • 1
  • Todd A. Lee
    • 2
    • 3
  • Douglas C. McCrory
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research InstituteDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Midwest Center for Health Services and Policy ResearchHines VA HospitalHinesUSA
  3. 3.Center for Healthcare Studies, Division of General Internal Medicine, and the Department of MedicineNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Center for Health Policy Research and EducationDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Center for Health Services Research in Primary CareDurham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Duke Clinical Research InstituteDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations