A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Pharmalgen® for the treatment of bee and wasp venom allergy

Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Liverpool, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 03/2012; 16(12):III-IV, 1-110. DOI: 10.3310/hta16120
Source: PubMed


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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The honeybee is an interesting insect because of the fundamental agricultural role it plays, together with the composition of its venom, which presents new diagnostic and immunotherapeutic challenges. This article examines various aspects of honeybee venom allergy from epidemiology to diagnosis and treatment, with special emphasis on venom immunotherapy (VIT). Honeybee venom allergy represents a risk factor for severe systemic reaction in challenged allergic patients, for the diminished effectiveness of VIT, for more frequent side effects during VIT and relapse after cessation of treatment. Some strategies are available for reducing the risk of honeybee VIT-induced side effects; however, there is considerable room for further improvement in these all-important areas. At the same time, sensitized and allergic beekeepers represent unique populations for epidemiological, venom allergy immunopathogenesis and VIT mechanism studies.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2012 · Immunotherapy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Insect sting allergy remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality all over the world. For patients with sting systemic reactions, prevention of future systemic reactions goes through the correct use of epinephrine by the Emergency Department doctors, the referral to an allergist for diagnosis and prescription of specific immunotherapy, if needed, and the proper techniques for self administration of epinephrine. However, compliance with international guidelines for the treatment of anaphylaxis, also in the specific case of insect-sting anaphylaxis, appears to be very low. Even recent epidemiological studies continue to reveal the poor management of venom-allergic patients and the startling lack of awareness of efficacy of venom immunotherapy. Nevertheless, hymenoptera sting hypersensitivity and venom immunotherapy represent an excellent model for the study of anaphylaxis and immune tolerance. In recent years, new insights have emerged into both the immunological mechanisms of venom immunotherapy and the natural history and risk factors of severe systemic reactions in untreated as well as treated patients. The availability of high quality venom extracts for use in the diagnosis and treatment of insect venom allergy has dramatically improved the prognosis and the health-related quality of life of venom-allergic patients. Subcutaneous venom immunotherapy is probably the most effective form of specific allergen immunotherapy. However, neither the efficacy nor the safety of the treatment are optimal, especially as regards to bee venom immunotherapy, and so there is considerable room for further improvement in these all-important areas. A number of new strategies for venom immunotherapy, mostly based on genetic engineering, have been described; unfortunately, so far only a few of them have been used in humans.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2013

  • No preview · Article · Apr 2013 · Allergy
Show more