Lauren J Luk1, Toby O Steele1, Jess C Mace1, Zachary M Soler2, Luke Rudmik3, Timothy L Smith1. 1. Division of Rhinology and Sinus/Skull Base Surgery, Oregon Sinus Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 2. Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 3. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A health utility value represents an individual's preference for living in a specific health state and is used in cost-utility analyses. This study investigates the impact of continuing medical therapy on health utility outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). METHODS: The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-6D (SF-6D) questionnaire was administered to patients prospectively enrolled in a longitudinal study examining treatment outcomes for CRS. Patients were prescribed robust, initial medical therapy and then elected to continue with medical therapy (n = 40) or undergo endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), followed by medical therapy (n = 152). Patients observed through treatment crossover to ESS were also evaluated (n = 20). Health utility values (SF-6D) were generated at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months follow-up for both cohorts and evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Treatment crossover patients were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of previous sinus surgery compared to medical management (χ(2) = 6.91; p = 0.009) and surgical intervention (χ(2) = 8.11; p = 0.004) subgroups. Mean baseline utility value for the medical therapy cohort was significantly better compared to the ESS cohort (mean ± standard deviation; 0.76 ± 0.12 vs 0.70 ± 0.15; p = 0.023). Significant improvement in health utility was reported in the ESS cohort (F(2) = 37.69; p < 0.001), whereas values remained stable, without significant improvement, in both the medical therapy cohort (F(2) = 0.03; p = 0.967) and treatment crossover cohort (F(2) = 2.36; p = 0.115). CONCLUSION: Patients electing continued medical management report better baseline health utility compared to patients electing ESS. Patients electing ESS show significant improvement in health utility, whereas those electing continued medical management demonstrate stable health utility over 12 months.
BACKGROUND: A health utility value represents an individual's preference for living in a specific health state and is used in cost-utility analyses. This study investigates the impact of continuing medical therapy on health utility outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). METHODS: The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-6D (SF-6D) questionnaire was administered to patients prospectively enrolled in a longitudinal study examining treatment outcomes for CRS. Patients were prescribed robust, initial medical therapy and then elected to continue with medical therapy (n = 40) or undergo endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), followed by medical therapy (n = 152). Patients observed through treatment crossover to ESS were also evaluated (n = 20). Health utility values (SF-6D) were generated at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months follow-up for both cohorts and evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Treatment crossover patients were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of previous sinus surgery compared to medical management (χ(2) = 6.91; p = 0.009) and surgical intervention (χ(2) = 8.11; p = 0.004) subgroups. Mean baseline utility value for the medical therapy cohort was significantly better compared to the ESS cohort (mean ± standard deviation; 0.76 ± 0.12 vs 0.70 ± 0.15; p = 0.023). Significant improvement in health utility was reported in the ESS cohort (F(2) = 37.69; p < 0.001), whereas values remained stable, without significant improvement, in both the medical therapy cohort (F(2) = 0.03; p = 0.967) and treatment crossover cohort (F(2) = 2.36; p = 0.115). CONCLUSION:Patients electing continued medical management report better baseline health utility compared to patients electing ESS. Patients electing ESS show significant improvement in health utility, whereas those electing continued medical management demonstrate stable health utility over 12 months.
Authors: Aaron K Remenschneider; George Scangas; Josh C Meier; Stacey T Gray; Eric H Holbrook; Richard E Gliklich; Ralph Metson Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 3.325
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: Rhinol Suppl Date: 2012-03
Authors: Hermes Florez; Qing Pan; Ronald T Ackermann; David G Marrero; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Linda Delahanty; Andrea Kriska; Christopher D Saudek; Ronald B Goldberg; Richard R Rubin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Dinesh Khanna; Xiaohong Yan; Donald P Tashkin; Daniel E Furst; Robert Elashoff; Michael D Roth; Richard Silver; Charlie Strange; Marcy Bolster; James R Seibold; David J Riley; Vivien M Hsu; John Varga; Dean E Schraufnagel; Arthur Theodore; Robert Simms; Robert Wise; Fredrick Wigley; Barbara White; Virginia Steen; Charles Read; Maureen Mayes; Ed Parsley; Kamal Mubarak; M Kari Connolly; Jeffrey Golden; Mitchell Olman; Barri Fessler; Naomi Rothfield; Mark Metersky; Philip J Clements Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-05
Authors: Aaron K Remenschneider; Laura D'Amico; Jamie R Litvack; Stacey T Gray; Eric H Holbrook; Richard Gliklich; Ralph Metson Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Amr A Saad; Darren M Ashcroft; Kath D Watson; Deborah P M Symmons; Peter R Noyce; Kimme L Hyrich Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Tuong T Nguyen; Paul S Soma; Teresa Mascenik; Catherine A Lewis; Rhianna E Lee; Brian D Thorp; Adam M Zanation; Charles S Ebert; Brent A Senior; Scott H Randell; Brandie M Ehrmann; Adam J Kimple Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Nithin D Adappa; Carl M Truesdale; Alan D Workman; Laurel Doghramji; Corrine Mansfield; David W Kennedy; James N Palmer; Beverly J Cowart; Noam A Cohen Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Toby O Steele; Jess C Mace; Raj Dedhia; Luke Rudmik; Timothy L Smith; Jeremiah A Alt Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Toby O Steele; Luke Rudmik; Jess C Mace; Adam S DeConde; Jeremiah A Alt; Timothy L Smith Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Edward El Rassi; Jess C Mace; Toby O Steele; Jeremiah A Alt; Timothy L Smith Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Robert Naclerio; Fuad Baroody; Claus Bachert; Benjamin Bleier; Larry Borish; Erica Brittain; Geoffrey Chupp; Anat Fisher; Wytske Fokkens; Philippe Gevaert; David Kennedy; Jean Kim; Tanya M Laidlaw; Jake J Lee; Jay F Piccirillo; Jayant M Pinto; Lauren T Roland; Robert P Schleimer; Rodney J Schlosser; Julie M Schwaninger; Timothy L Smith; Bruce K Tan; Ming Tan; Elina Toskala; Sally Wenzel; Alkis Togias Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2020-03-04