The Laryngoscope · 2017
The value of frontal sinusotomy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps-A cost utility analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Scangas George A, Lehmann Ashton E, Remenschneider Aaron K, Su Brooke M, Shrime Mark G, Metson Ralph
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The number of surgical procedures performed for frontal sinusitis and the associated costs have increased dramatically over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic frontal sinusotomy (EFS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP).
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 36-year time horizon.
METHODS: Matched cohorts of CRSwNP patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) with (n = 139) and without (n = 49) EFS were compared to each other and to patients (n = 139) from the Medical Expenditures Survey Panel database who underwent medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis. Multi-year health utility values were calculated from responses to the EuroQol 5-Dimension instrument. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
RESULTS: Decision analysis showed that ESS without EFS proved more cost-effective than ESS with EFS or medical management. ESS without EFS compared to medical management yielded an ICER of $9,004/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). ESS with EFS compared to ESS without EFS yielded an ICER of $62,310/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, ESS without EFS was more cost-effective than ESS with EFS with 52.1% certainty. These results were robust to one-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: ESS remains a cost-effective intervention compared to medical therapy alone for patients with CRSwNP. In this study, the addition of frontal sinusotomy during ESS for patients with CRSwNP was not found to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, but may be cost effective at a higher threshold of $100,000/QALY.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c. Laryngoscope, 128:43-51, 2018.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 36-year time horizon.
METHODS: Matched cohorts of CRSwNP patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) with (n = 139) and without (n = 49) EFS were compared to each other and to patients (n = 139) from the Medical Expenditures Survey Panel database who underwent medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis. Multi-year health utility values were calculated from responses to the EuroQol 5-Dimension instrument. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
RESULTS: Decision analysis showed that ESS without EFS proved more cost-effective than ESS with EFS or medical management. ESS without EFS compared to medical management yielded an ICER of $9,004/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). ESS with EFS compared to ESS without EFS yielded an ICER of $62,310/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, ESS without EFS was more cost-effective than ESS with EFS with 52.1% certainty. These results were robust to one-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: ESS remains a cost-effective intervention compared to medical therapy alone for patients with CRSwNP. In this study, the addition of frontal sinusotomy during ESS for patients with CRSwNP was not found to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, but may be cost effective at a higher threshold of $100,000/QALY.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c. Laryngoscope, 128:43-51, 2018.