Luke Rudmik 1 , Timothy L Smith 2 . Show Affiliations »
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a mometasone steroid-eluting sinus implant compared to a nonsteroid-eluting sinus implant following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis. STUDY DESIGN: Economic evaluation using a decision tree model. SETTING: Academic and nonacademic otolaryngology practices. SUBJECTS: Patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis undergoing ESS. METHODS: The economic perspective was the health care third party payer. Effectiveness and probability data were obtained from a single meta-analysis of 2 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials. Costs were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database and wholesale pharmaceutical pricing. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Comparative treatment groups were (1) placement of the mometasone steroid-eluting sinus implant following ESS and (2) placement of a nonsteroid-eluting implant following ESS. The primary outcome was cost per postoperative intervention avoided within 60 days after ESS. RESULTS: The mean cost for the steroid-eluting and nonsteroid-eluting sinus implant strategies were $1,572.91 and $365.18, respectively. The steroid-eluting strategy incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $5,489.68. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 74.3%, 87.2%, and 90.5% certainty that the steroid-eluting implant strategy is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $10,000, $25,000, and $50,000, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results from this economic evaluation suggest that placement of a mometasone steroid-eluting sinus implant into the ethmoid cavity following ESS for refractory chronic rhinosinusitis is a cost-effective intervention for preventing a postoperative intervention within 60 days after surgery. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2014.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a mometasone steroid -eluting sinus implant compared to a nonsteroid-eluting sinus implant following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS ) for chronic rhinosinusitis . STUDY DESIGN: Economic evaluation using a decision tree model. SETTING: Academic and nonacademic otolaryngology practices. SUBJECTS: Patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis undergoing ESS . METHODS: The economic perspective was the health care third party payer. Effectiveness and probability data were obtained from a single meta-analysis of 2 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials. Costs were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database and wholesale pharmaceutical pricing. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Comparative treatment groups were (1) placement of the mometasone steroid -eluting sinus implant following ESS and (2) placement of a nonsteroid-eluting implant following ESS . The primary outcome was cost per postoperative intervention avoided within 60 days after ESS . RESULTS: The mean cost for the steroid -eluting and nonsteroid-eluting sinus implant strategies were $1,572.91 and $365.18, respectively. The steroid -eluting strategy incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $5,489.68. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 74.3%, 87.2%, and 90.5% certainty that the steroid -eluting implant strategy is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $10,000, $25,000, and $50,000, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results from this economic evaluation suggest that placement of a mometasone steroid -eluting sinus implant into the ethmoid cavity following ESS for refractory chronic rhinosinusitis is a cost-effective intervention for preventing a postoperative intervention within 60 days after surgery. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2014.
Entities: Chemical
Disease
Species
Keywords:
Propel; chronic rhinosinusitis; cost-effectiveness; economic evaluation; endoscopic sinus surgery; implant; sinusitis; spacer; stent; topical corticosteroid
Mesh: See more »
Substances: See more »
Year: 2014
PMID: 24796330 DOI: 10.1177/0194599814533779
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ISSN: 0194-5998 Impact factor: 3.497