Andre Le1, Kednapa Thavorn2,3,4, Andrea Lasso3, Shaun J Kilty3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences, ICES@uOttawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Floseal, a topically applied hemostatic agent, and nasal packing for the management of epistaxis in Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Outcomes research, a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to compare the costs and health outcomes of Floseal with nasal packing over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. A cycle length of 1 year was used. Efficacy of Floseal and packing was sought from the published literature. Unit costs were gathered from a hospital case costing system, whereas physician fees were extracted from the Ontario Schedule of Benefits for Physician Services. Results were expressed as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: From the perspective of a publicly funded health are system, the Floseal treatment strategy was associated with higher costs ($2,067) and greater QALYs (0.27) than nasal packing. Our findings were highly sensitive to discount rates, the cost of Floseal, and the cost of nasal packing. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probability that Floseal treatment is cost-effective reached 99% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was greater than $120,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies have demonstrated Floseal to be an effective treatment for anterior epistaxis. In the Canadian healthcare system, Floseal treatment appears to be a cost-effective treatment option compared to nasal packing for anterior epistaxis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c Laryngoscope, 1778-1782, 2018.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Floseal, a topically applied hemostatic agent, and nasal packing for the management of epistaxis in Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Outcomes research, a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to compare the costs and health outcomes of Floseal with nasal packing over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. A cycle length of 1 year was used. Efficacy of Floseal and packing was sought from the published literature. Unit costs were gathered from a hospital case costing system, whereas physician fees were extracted from the Ontario Schedule of Benefits for Physician Services. Results were expressed as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: From the perspective of a publicly funded health are system, the Floseal treatment strategy was associated with higher costs ($2,067) and greater QALYs (0.27) than nasal packing. Our findings were highly sensitive to discount rates, the cost of Floseal, and the cost of nasal packing. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probability that Floseal treatment is cost-effective reached 99% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was greater than $120,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies have demonstrated Floseal to be an effective treatment for anterior epistaxis. In the Canadian healthcare system, Floseal treatment appears to be a cost-effective treatment option compared to nasal packing for anterior epistaxis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c Laryngoscope, 1778-1782, 2018.