Current medical research and opinion · 2025
Equivalent healthcare resource use following either a long-acting steroid-eluting implant or repeat endoscopic surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis patients with nasal polyp recurrence: a real-world evidence study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Feldman Becca S, Nelson Jason, Deng Xiaomin, McKenzie Karen, Kallman James E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of a long-acting steroid-eluting sinus implant (Implant) against repeat endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for nasal polyp recurrence after initial ESS on healthcare resource use (HCRU) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP).
METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study using linked claims and electronic medical records (EMR) real-world data included CRSwNP patients who received the Implant for recurrent NP. Patients receiving the Implant were matched to patients undergoing repeat ESS using a propensity score via baseline characteristics. Patients in both cohorts were required to have at least 12 months' data before the index procedure. Subsequent HCRU over 18 months was compared between the cohorts using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 267 patients receiving the Implant (mean age 49.6 ± 15.2 years, 55.1% male) matched to 267 patients undergoing repeat ESS. During the follow-up period, both cohorts saw statistically equivalent HCRU across multiple types of all-cause patient encounters: outpatient (98.1% versus 98.9%, p = 0.476), otolaryngology (82.0% versus 75.3%, p = 0.057) and emergency room (18.4% versus 21.0%, p = 0.446). For the Implant cohort nasal endoscopy procedures were higher (78.7% versus 68.2%, p < 0.006) and sinus debridement procedures were lower (51.7% versus 72.3%, p < 0.001). Both cohorts saw statistically equivalent efficacy in avoiding subsequent interventions in either biologics or repeat ESS (27.0% versus 26.2%, p = 0.845). Cost estimates yielded a lower cost ($3,735 or 18.4% less) for Implant ($16,531) than for repeat ESS ($20,265).
CONCLUSION: Observed HCRU for CRSwNP patients after receiving the Implant was no different than after repeat ESS. Efficacy in avoiding subsequent interventions was likewise equivalent. Cost estimates suggest the Implant is lower cost than repeat ESS. Given similar impacts on HCRU/clinical efficacy and potential lower cost, the Implant may warrant consideration over repeat ESS as first-line intervention for CRSwNP patients with NP recurrence.
METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study using linked claims and electronic medical records (EMR) real-world data included CRSwNP patients who received the Implant for recurrent NP. Patients receiving the Implant were matched to patients undergoing repeat ESS using a propensity score via baseline characteristics. Patients in both cohorts were required to have at least 12 months' data before the index procedure. Subsequent HCRU over 18 months was compared between the cohorts using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 267 patients receiving the Implant (mean age 49.6 ± 15.2 years, 55.1% male) matched to 267 patients undergoing repeat ESS. During the follow-up period, both cohorts saw statistically equivalent HCRU across multiple types of all-cause patient encounters: outpatient (98.1% versus 98.9%, p = 0.476), otolaryngology (82.0% versus 75.3%, p = 0.057) and emergency room (18.4% versus 21.0%, p = 0.446). For the Implant cohort nasal endoscopy procedures were higher (78.7% versus 68.2%, p < 0.006) and sinus debridement procedures were lower (51.7% versus 72.3%, p < 0.001). Both cohorts saw statistically equivalent efficacy in avoiding subsequent interventions in either biologics or repeat ESS (27.0% versus 26.2%, p = 0.845). Cost estimates yielded a lower cost ($3,735 or 18.4% less) for Implant ($16,531) than for repeat ESS ($20,265).
CONCLUSION: Observed HCRU for CRSwNP patients after receiving the Implant was no different than after repeat ESS. Efficacy in avoiding subsequent interventions was likewise equivalent. Cost estimates suggest the Implant is lower cost than repeat ESS. Given similar impacts on HCRU/clinical efficacy and potential lower cost, the Implant may warrant consideration over repeat ESS as first-line intervention for CRSwNP patients with NP recurrence.