Abstract ‚e recently published S2k-guideline on (allergen-) specic immunotherapy (AIT) provides an excel-lent overview of the evidence on allergen prepara-tions available for AIT in Germany based on the published e„cacy studies. Publications based on the guideline are currently being used by the Ger-man associations of statutory health insurance physicians and German health insurance funds to open a discussion on the reimbursement status of allergen preparations. In our view, calling the re-imbursement status of perscribable and tradable AIT preparations into question on the basis of an assessment of the current body of evidence in the guideline is to be rigidly opposed. In Germany the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) is the only authority empowered to decide on the marketability of AIT preparations, and decisions on the reimbursement status of AIT products need to be based on cost– benet analyses and not solely on an evaluation of the evidence. ‚e present article aims to examine the relationship between the evidence, e„cacy, tradability, and reimbursability of AIT prepara-tions.