Table II.
Cost-effectiveness of pandemic home AIT from a societal perspective
| Strategy | Cost ($) | Effectiveness (QALY) | CE | ICER ($/QALY) | NMB ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic AIT | $16,394 | 22.1061 | $742 | — | $2,194,214 |
| Home AIT | $16,464 | 22.1077 | $745 | $44,554 | $2,194,302 |
| Discontinue AIT | $18,332 | 21.9077 | $837 | Dominated | $2,172,434 |
| Microsimulation∗ | Cost ($)† | Effectiveness (QALY)† | CE | ICER ($/QALY) | NMB ($)† | Fatality | AIT Early discontinuation† |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic AIT | $16,380 ± $4,909 | 22.0913 ± 3.8201 | $741 | — | $2,192,752 ± $379,798 | 0 | 47.0% ± 50.0% |
| Home AIT | $15,934 ± $4,915 | 22.1503 ± 3.8101 | $719 | Dominant | $2,199,093 ± $379,043 | 0 | 38.6% ± 48.7% |
| Discontinue AIT | $18,354 ± $3,165 | 21.9335 ± 3.7821 | $837 | Dominated | $2,174,996 ± $375,048 |
CE, Cost-effectiveness; NMB, net monetary benefit.
∗
The microsimulation (n = 10,000) discontinued AIT in patients with more than 2 systemic reactions, and patients receiving home AIT had a 25% reduction in patient-preference AIT discontinuation rates.
†
Values presented as mean ± SD.