OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to continued medical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic evaluation. METHODS: The economic perspective was the U.S. third-party payer with a 30-year time horizon. The two comparative treatment strategies were: 1) ESS, followed by appropriate postoperative medical therapy; and 2) continued medical therapy alone. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs were discounted at a rate of 3.5% in the reference case. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed, including differing time-horizons, discounting scenarios, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: The reference case demonstrated that the ESS strategy cost a total of $48,838.38 and produced a total of 20.50 QALYs. The medical therapy alone strategy cost a total of $28,948.98 and produced a total of 17.13 QALYs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for ESS versus medical therapy alone is $5,901.90 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve from the PSA demonstrated that there is a 74% certainty that the ESS strategy is the most cost-effective decision for any willingness to pay a threshold greater than $25,000. The time-horizon analysis suggests that ESS becomes the cost-effective intervention within the third year after surgery. CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggest that employing an ESS treatment strategy is the most cost-effective intervention compared to continued medical therapy alone for the long-term management of patients with refractory CRS.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to continued medical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic evaluation. METHODS: The economic perspective was the U.S. third-party payer with a 30-year time horizon. The two comparative treatment strategies were: 1) ESS, followed by appropriate postoperative medical therapy; and 2) continued medical therapy alone. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs were discounted at a rate of 3.5% in the reference case. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed, including differing time-horizons, discounting scenarios, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: The reference case demonstrated that the ESS strategy cost a total of $48,838.38 and produced a total of 20.50 QALYs. The medical therapy alone strategy cost a total of $28,948.98 and produced a total of 17.13 QALYs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for ESS versus medical therapy alone is $5,901.90 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve from the PSA demonstrated that there is a 74% certainty that the ESS strategy is the most cost-effective decision for any willingness to pay a threshold greater than $25,000. The time-horizon analysis suggests that ESS becomes the cost-effective intervention within the third year after surgery. CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggest that employing an ESS treatment strategy is the most cost-effective intervention compared to continued medical therapy alone for the long-term management of patients with refractory CRS.
Authors: Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Todd T Kingdom; Jayakar V Nayak; Peter H Hwang; Richard R Orlandi Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Andrew H Briggs; Milton C Weinstein; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Jonathan Karnon; Mark J Sculpher; A David Paltiel Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Wytske J Fokkens; Valerie J Lund; Joachim Mullol; Claus Bachert; Isam Alobid; Fuad Baroody; Noam Cohen; Anders Cervin; Richard Douglas; Philippe Gevaert; Christos Georgalas; Herman Goossens; Richard Harvey; Peter Hellings; Claire Hopkins; Nick Jones; Guy Joos; Livije Kalogjera; Bob Kern; Marek Kowalski; David Price; Herbert Riechelmann; Rodney Schlosser; Brent Senior; Mike Thomas; Elina Toskala; Richard Voegels; De Yun Wang; Peter John Wormald Journal: Rhinology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Richard M Rosenfeld; David Andes; Neil Bhattacharyya; Dickson Cheung; Steven Eisenberg; Theodore G Ganiats; Andrea Gelzer; Daniel Hamilos; Richard C Haydon; Patricia A Hudgins; Stacie Jones; Helene J Krouse; Lawrence H Lee; Martin C Mahoney; Bradley F Marple; Col John P Mitchell; Robert Nathan; Richard N Shiffman; Timothy L Smith; David L Witsell Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Daniel M Beswick; Jess C Mace; Luke Rudmik; Zachary M Soler; Adam S DeConde; Timothy L Smith Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-07-28 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Timothy L Smith; Rodney J Schlosser; Jess C Mace; Jeremiah A Alt; Daniel M Beswick; Adam S DeConde; Kara Y Detwiller; Jose L Mattos; Zachary M Soler Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Lauren J Luk; Toby O Steele; Jess C Mace; Zachary M Soler; Luke Rudmik; Timothy L Smith Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Luke Rudmik; Timothy L Smith; Jess C Mace; Rodney J Schlosser; Peter H Hwang; Zachary M Soler Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Daniel M Beswick; Jess C Mace; Zachary M Soler; Noel F Ayoub; Luke Rudmik; Adam S DeConde; Timothy L Smith Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 3.325