Optimizing quality of care and cost effectiveness in treating allergic rhinitis in a managed care setting

Abstract

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition in managed care populations. The direct medical cost of rhinitis exceeded $3 billion in 1996, and an additional cost of $4 billion resulted from the exacerbation of other concomitant conditions, such as asthma or otitis media. Costs continued to increase in 1999; sales of prescription antihistamines and nasal steroids exceeded $3 billion and $1 billion, respectively. The indirect costs of allergic rhinitis include lost work productivity, reduced performance and learning, and increased workplace and traffic accidents. Rhinitis treatments include allergen avoidance, over-the-counter (OTC) sedating antihistamines, nonsedating antihistamines, nasal steroids, and immunotherapy. Allergen avoidance strategies for patients with asthma and rhinitis are ineffective or are of very limited benefit. Allergists criticize the use of OTC sedating antihistamines, which are associated with reduced learning and performance even when sedation does not occur. Evidence-based literature reviews of clinical trials have shown that nasal steroids are more effective than nonsedating antihistamines in the treatment of rhinitis. The most commonly prescribed nasal steroid, fluticasone, has been shown to be effective in treating rhinitis and in improving patients' quality of life. It is also more cost effective than the most commonly prescribed antihistamine, loratadine. Clinical trials have indicated that immunotherapy is expensive and of limited benefit. As these evidence-based findings are used to develop managed care treatment guidelines, nasal steroids are likely to be recommended as the first-line treatment for rhinitis, which should result in lower treatment costs and improved outcomes for patients with rhinitis.