Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2016
Endoscopic polypectomy in the clinic: a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Rudmik L, Smith K A, Kilty S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot economic evaluation was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the endoscopic polypectomy in the clinic (EPIC) procedure compared to formal endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for the treatment of select chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients with nasal polyposis.
DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov decision tree model with a 30-year time horizon. The two comparative treatment groups were as follows: (i) EPIC and (ii) ESS. Costs and effects were discounted at a rate of 3.5%. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.
SETTING: Economic perspective of the Canadian government third-party payer.
PARTICIPANTS: CRS patients with nasal polyposis who have predominantly isolated symptoms of nasal obstruction with or without olfactory loss.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY).
RESULTS: Over a time period of 30 years, the reference case demonstrated that the ESS strategy cost a total of $21,345 and produced 13.17 QALYs while the EPIC strategy cost a total of $5591 and produced 12.93 QALYs. The ESS versus EPIC incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $65,641/QALY. The probability that EPIC is cost-effective compared to ESS at a maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000 and $50,000/QALY is 66% and 60%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes from this study have demonstrated that the EPIC procedure may be a cost-effective treatment strategy for 'select' patients with nasal polyposis. Data from this study were obtained from a small pilot trial, and we feel the results warrant a future randomised controlled trial to strengthen the outcomes.
DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov decision tree model with a 30-year time horizon. The two comparative treatment groups were as follows: (i) EPIC and (ii) ESS. Costs and effects were discounted at a rate of 3.5%. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.
SETTING: Economic perspective of the Canadian government third-party payer.
PARTICIPANTS: CRS patients with nasal polyposis who have predominantly isolated symptoms of nasal obstruction with or without olfactory loss.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY).
RESULTS: Over a time period of 30 years, the reference case demonstrated that the ESS strategy cost a total of $21,345 and produced 13.17 QALYs while the EPIC strategy cost a total of $5591 and produced 12.93 QALYs. The ESS versus EPIC incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $65,641/QALY. The probability that EPIC is cost-effective compared to ESS at a maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000 and $50,000/QALY is 66% and 60%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes from this study have demonstrated that the EPIC procedure may be a cost-effective treatment strategy for 'select' patients with nasal polyposis. Data from this study were obtained from a small pilot trial, and we feel the results warrant a future randomised controlled trial to strengthen the outcomes.