Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2020
Cost-effectiveness of Endoscopic Polypectomy in Clinic compared to Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A modelling study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kumar Srishti, Thavorn Kednapa, van Katwyk Sasha, Lasso Andrea, Kilty Shaun J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare costs and quality-adjusted life years of patients receiving endoscopic polypectomy in the clinic those receiving endoscopic sinus surgery from the perspective of Canada's health system.
METHOD: We developed a Markov model to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years among a cohort of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps who received endoscopic polypectomy in clinic or endoscopic sinus surgery, over a patient's lifetime. Our study focused on patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps who have the predominant symptom of bilateral nasal obstruction. Cost data were obtained from Canadian sources. Health utility values were derived from Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores reported in the published literature. A cycle length of six months was used. Both costs and quality-adjusted life years were discounted using an annual rate of 1.5%. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the study findings.
RESULTS: Endoscopic polypectomy in clinic was a cost-saving option as it had a lower cost (C$736 vs. C$6,728) and produced more quality-adjusted life years (13.85 vs 13.06) compared to endoscopic sinus surgery. Our findings were, however, highly sensitive to health utility values. Results from probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that endoscopic polypectomy in clinic had a lower cost and was more effective compared to endoscopic sinus surgery in 99.86% of iterations.
CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system, endoscopic polypectomy in clinic was economically attractive compared to endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps patients who have a primary symptom of bilateral nasal obstruction. The cost-effectiveness results are, however, highly dependent on the relative impact of endoscopic polypectomy in the clinic and endoscopic sinus surgery on post-surgery health utility values.
METHOD: We developed a Markov model to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years among a cohort of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps who received endoscopic polypectomy in clinic or endoscopic sinus surgery, over a patient's lifetime. Our study focused on patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps who have the predominant symptom of bilateral nasal obstruction. Cost data were obtained from Canadian sources. Health utility values were derived from Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores reported in the published literature. A cycle length of six months was used. Both costs and quality-adjusted life years were discounted using an annual rate of 1.5%. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the study findings.
RESULTS: Endoscopic polypectomy in clinic was a cost-saving option as it had a lower cost (C$736 vs. C$6,728) and produced more quality-adjusted life years (13.85 vs 13.06) compared to endoscopic sinus surgery. Our findings were, however, highly sensitive to health utility values. Results from probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that endoscopic polypectomy in clinic had a lower cost and was more effective compared to endoscopic sinus surgery in 99.86% of iterations.
CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system, endoscopic polypectomy in clinic was economically attractive compared to endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps patients who have a primary symptom of bilateral nasal obstruction. The cost-effectiveness results are, however, highly dependent on the relative impact of endoscopic polypectomy in the clinic and endoscopic sinus surgery on post-surgery health utility values.