Premium
Cost‐effectiveness of Endoscopic Polypectomy in Clinic compared to Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A modelling study
Author(s) -
Kumar Srishti,
Thavorn Kednapa,
Katwyk Sasha,
Lasso Andrea,
Kilty Shaun J
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/coa.13533
Subject(s) - medicine , polypectomy , endoscopic sinus surgery , nasal polyps , quality of life (healthcare) , endoscopy , functional endoscopic sinus surgery , surgery , chronic rhinosinusitis , sinusitis , colorectal cancer , colonoscopy , nursing , cancer
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.