• Luke Rudmik, Zachary M Soler, Jess C Mace, Rodney J Schlosser, and Timothy L Smith.
• Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
• Laryngoscope. 2015 Jan 1; 125 (1): 25-32.

Objectives/HypothesisTo evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to continued medical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).Study DesignCohort-style Markov decision-tree economic evaluation.MethodsThe economic perspective was the U.S. third-party payer with a 30-year time horizon. The two comparative treatment strategies were: 1) ESS, followed by appropriate postoperative medical therapy; and 2) continued medical therapy alone. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs were discounted at a rate of 3.5% in the reference case. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed, including differing time-horizons, discounting scenarios, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).ResultsThe reference case demonstrated that the ESS strategy cost a total of $48,838.38 and produced a total of 20.50 QALYs. The medical therapy alone strategy cost a total of $28,948.98 and produced a total of 17.13 QALYs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for ESS versus medical therapy alone is $5,901.90 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve from the PSA demonstrated that there is a 74% certainty that the ESS strategy is the most cost-effective decision for any willingness to pay a threshold greater than $25,000. The time-horizon analysis suggests that ESS becomes the cost-effective intervention within the third year after surgery.ConclusionResults from this study suggest that employing an ESS treatment strategy is the most cost-effective intervention compared to continued medical therapy alone for the long-term management of patients with refractory CRS.© 2014 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

40 keywords...

hide…