Assessing the effect of absorbable steroid sinus implant: a state-of-the-art systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic sinus surgery is not a definitive treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The use of sinus stents after surgery to maintain sinus patency and deliver local steroids has gained popularity. The first steroid-eluting bioabsorbable implant (SEBI) approved for this indication, later Propel, was developed in 2011. This state-of-the-art review aims to summarize the available evidence, as well as to point out potential pitfalls and lack of specific analyses to guide future research on this new therapeutic option.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SciELO.

REVIEW METHODS

Nine research questions were defined: Are steroid-eluting Sinus implants useful for the control of CRS symptoms after surgery? Do they improve surgical field healing after CRS surgery? Do they decrease polyp regrowth after ESS? Do they decrease the need for ESS? Are they useful in symptom control as in-office procedure? Are they better than other steroid-impregnated resorbable materials? Do they have a positive impact on olfaction? Are they safe? Are they cost-effective? Retrieved articles were reviewed by two authors.

RESULTS

Twenty nine studies were included: 3 metanalysis, 1 systematic review, 10 randomized clinical trials, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 1 retrospective cohort study, 4 cost studies, 3 case series and 2 expert consensus. The review encompassed a population of 3,012 patients treated with SEBI and 2826 controls.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first state-of-the-art review assessing steroid eluting bioabsorbable stent evidence. Despite the effort in recent years, still several questions remain unanswered. This review will hopefully guide future research efforts to better define the role of SEBI in the otolaryngology practice.

Management of pediatric choanal atresia restenosis and subglottic stenosis using steroid-eluting stents

OBJECTIVES

To depict the novel use of steroid-eluting stents in the treatment of choanal atresia (CA) restenosis and subglottic stenosis (SGS).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of three pediatric patients, one with CA and two with SGS, treated with mometasone furoate eluting mini stents (PROPEL) was performed. Patients were evaluated for restenosis and adverse events between one to twelve months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, patient one with CA showed no signs of restenosis and required no further intervention. Patient two with SGS demonstrated an open subglottic lumen with no signs of restenosis as well as improved phonation following his planned serial procedures. Post-operatively, patient three with SGS exhibited no restenosis of the subglottic lumen, tolerated intermittent tracheostomy capping, and demonstrated improved phonation.

CONCLUSION

In this case series, we outline successful treatments for the management of CA restenosis and SGS with mometasone furoate-eluting stents. To our knowledge, this is the first reported application of this treatment in pediatric patients with CA restenosis and the second reported application in pediatric patients with SGS.

Considerations for shared decision-making in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Shared decision-making is an approach where physicians and patients work together to determine a personalized treatment course. Such an approach is integral to patient-centered care in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). CRSwNP is a chronic inflammatory condition of the sinonasal cavity that can severely impact physical health, smell, and quality of life (QOL). Traditional standard-of-care treatment options include topical (i.e. sprays) and oral corticosteroids and endoscopic sinus surgery, but more recently, novel corticosteroid delivery methods (i.e. high volume irrigations, recently-approved exhalation breath-powered delivering devices, and drug-eluting steroid implants) and 3 new FDA approved biologics directed against type II immunomodulators have become available. The availability of these therapeutics offers exciting new opportunities in CRSwNP management but requires personalized and shared-decision making as each modality has variable impacts on CRSwNP and related comorbid conditions. Studies have published treatment algorithms, but the practical use of these lean guidelines is heavily influenced by the lens of the treating physician, the most common being otolaryngologists and allergy immunologists. Clinical equipoise occurs when there is no basis for one intervention to be regarded as “better” than another. While most guidelines, in general, support the use of topical corticosteroids with or without oral corticosteroids followed by ESS for the majority of unoperated CRSwNP patients, there are situations of clinical equipoise that arise particularly in CRSwNP who have failed surgery or those with severe comorbid conditions. In the shared decision-making process, clinicians and patients must consider symptomatology, goals, comfort, compliance, treatment efficacy, and treatment cost when determining the initial choice of therapy and escalation of therapy with the potential use of multiple modalities for recalcitrant CRSwNP. A summary of salient considerations that might constitute shared decision-making is presented in this summary.

Current and Emerging Treatment Options in Sinus and Nasal Diseases: Surgical Challenges and Therapeutic Perspectives

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), one of the most prevalent health problems worldwide, is defined as a chronic inflammation of the nasal and paranasal sinuses mucosa persisting for more than 12 weeks [...].

The efficacy and safety of several interventions of corticosteroids for CRSwNP patients after endoscope sinus surgery: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroid has been a mainstay of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) medical therapy. While endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) will be performed when patients had failed to respond to maximal medical therapy. Many studies shown that several corticosteroids of interventions (e.g., nasal spray, oral, atomization/nebulization, nasal irrigation, direct infiltration, and steroid-eluting stent, etc) have each demonstrated significant efficacy compared with placebo or no corticosteroids intervention except intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of CRSwNP after ESS. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to answer the following question: which 1 is the best corticosteroid of intervention for CRSwNP patients after ESS?

METHODS

A systematic review will be conducted to identify studies involving randomized controlled trials which compared several different interventions of corticosteroids (e.g., nasal spray, oral, atomization/nebulization, nasal irrigation, direct infiltration, steroid-eluting stent, etc) for CRSwNP patients after ESS. The primary outcomes are efficacy (e.g., effective rate or cure rate), visual analogic scale of symptom severity, Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score, adverse events, and so on. We will comprehensively search PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wangfang and VIP journal database from inception to July, 2022. For studies which meet our inclusion criteria, 2 reviewers will extract data independently and assess the quality of literature using a revision of version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0). A random effects model will be used for all pairwise meta-analyses (with a 95% confidence interval). Network meta-analyses will be conducted to generate estimates of comparative effectiveness of each intervention class and rankings of their effectiveness.

RESULTS

The results of this study expect to provide a high-quality, evidence-based recommendation on which 1 is the best corticosteroid of intervention for CRSwNP patients after ESS?

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence regarding the comparability of several interventions of corticosteroids for CRSwNP patients after ESS. Also, the data generated from this review will provide health-care providers with a clear evidence synthesis of CRSwNP patients after ESS management strategies. These data will be incorporated into the development of a patient decision aid to assist patients and clinicians in making a preference-based decision when faced with a CRSwNP patients after ESS as well.

Cost comparison between spinal versus general anesthesia for hip and knee arthroplasty: an incremental cost study

PURPOSE

Wait list times for total joint arthroplasties have been growing, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing operating room (OR) efficiency by reducing OR time and associated costs while maintaining quality allows the greatest number of patients to receive care.

METHODS

We used propensity score matching to compare parallel processing with spinal anesthesia in a block room vs general anesthesia in a retrospective cohort of adult patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared perioperative costs, hospital costs, OR time intervals, and complications between the groups with nonparametric tests using an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

After matching, we included 636 patients (315 TKA; 321 THA). Median [interquartile range (IQR)] perioperative costs were CAD 7,417 [6,521-8,109], and hospital costs were CAD 10,293 [9,344-11,304]. Perioperative costs were not significantly different between groups (pseudo-median difference [MD], CAD -47 (95% confidence interval [CI], -214 to -130; P = 0.60); nor were total hospital costs (MD, CAD -78; 95% CI, -340 to 178; P = 0.57). Anesthesia-controlled time and total intraoperative time were significantly shorter for spinal anesthesia (MD, 14.6 min; 95% CI, 13.4 to 15.9; P < 0.001; MD, 15.9; 95% CI, 11.0 to 20.9; P < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in complications.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia in the context of a dedicated block room reduced both anesthesia-controlled time and total OR time. This did not translate into a reduction in incremental cost in the spinal anesthesia group.

Real-world evidence analysis of the impact of steroid-eluting implants on healthcare resource use among chronic rhinosinusitis patients undergoing sinus surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare resource use (HCRU) in patients undergoing sinus surgery with or without steroid-eluting sinus implants.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study using real-world evidence data (OM1, Inc, Boston, MA, USA) was conducted on adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery between 2014 and 2019 and had at least 18 months of data both before and after surgery. Patients receiving implants ("implant cohort") were matched to patients who did not receive implants ("non-implant cohort") based on a propensity score developed using baseline characteristics. Chi-square for binary variables and analysis of variance tests for continuous variables were applied to compare HCRU measures.

RESULTS

Comparison of the implant (N = 1983) and non-implant (N = 1983) cohorts during the 18-month follow-up period demonstrated significantly lower HCRU in those receiving implants, including all-cause outpatient visits (94.3% vs. 96.6%, p < .001), all-cause otolaryngologist visits (47.3% vs. 59.6%, p < .001) and all cause ER/urgent care visits (9.2% vs. 11.8%, p = .007), as well as sinus-related endoscopies (39.1% vs. 43.8%, p = .003). Although not statistically significant, fewer patients in the implant cohort had undergone repeat surgeries (4.6% vs. 5.3%, p = .273).

CONCLUSION

Patients with steroid-eluting sinus implants had lower HCRU over a post-operative period of 18 months. These findings support the contention that reductions in HCRU may be achieved using steroid-eluting implants during sinus surgery.What is known on this topicChronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) causes severe symptoms that lead to poor quality of life.Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is 76-98% effective in improving CRS patients' symptoms.Surgical outcomes can be compromised in the immediate post-operative period by scarring, adhesion formation, and early polyp recurrence.Oral and topical corticosteroid therapy has become integral to the maintenance of successful surgical outcomes, the management of post-operative scarring and edema, and the prevention of nasal polyp recurrence.Steroid-eluting sinus implants have been shown in clinical trials to improve postoperative outcomes after ESS by delivering localized, sustained release of corticosteroids directly onto inflamed sinus tissue.What this study addsThis observational study is one of the first to use real-world evidence to assess the effect of steroid-eluting sinus implants on healthcare resource use (HCRU) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis who underwent sinus surgery with or without implants.Use of implants significantly reduced HCRU, including all-cause outpatient visits (94.3% vs 96.6%, p < .001), all-cause otolaryngologist visits (47.3% vs 59.6%, p < .001), and all-cause ER/urgent care visits (9.2% vs 11.8%, p = .007), as well as sinus endoscopy (39.1% vs 43.8%, p = .003).Use of implants had no significant effect on sinus procedures such as debridement and polypectomy, as well as sinus-related imaging such as CT, MRI, and x-ray.

Corticosteroid Use in Otolaryngology: Current Considerations During the COVID-19 Era

OBJECTIVE

To offer pragmatic, evidence-informed advice on administering corticosteroids in otolaryngology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, considering therapeutic efficacy, potential adverse effects, susceptibility to COVID-19, and potential effects on efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and guideline databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Guideline search strategies, supplemented by database searches on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), idiopathic facial nerve paralysis (Bell's palsy), sinonasal polyposis, laryngotracheal disorders, head and neck oncology, and pediatric otolaryngology, prioritizing systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and COVID-19-specific findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) reduce long-term morbidity in individuals with SSNHL and Bell's palsy, reduce acute laryngotracheal edema, and have benefit in perioperative management for some procedures. Topical or locally injected corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. SCSs have not shown long-term benefit for sinonasal disorders. SCSs are not a contraindication to vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that these vaccines are safe for immunocompromised patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

SCS use for SSNHL, Bell's palsy, laryngotracheal edema, and perioperative care should follow prepandemic standards. Local or topical corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. Whether SCSs attenuate response to vaccination against COVID-19 or increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. Immunosuppression may lower vaccine efficacy, so immunocompromised patients should adhere to recommended infection control practices. COVID-19 vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines is safe for immunocompromised patients.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document.

METHODS

ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary.

RESULTS

ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided.

CONCLUSION

This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

A Corticosteroid-Eluting Sinus Implant Following Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A UK-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is one of the commonest chronic health problems among adults in the UK. Around 15% of CRS patients undergo functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) annually after failing medical treatment. However, as incomplete resolution of symptoms or complications post-operatively is common, the post-operative management is considered to be as important as the surgery itself. A bioabsorbable corticosteroid-eluting sinus implant (CESI) (Propel^®, mometasone furoate 370 µg) has been used as an alternative post-FESS treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the corticosteroid-eluting implant versus non-corticosteroid-eluting spacer following FESS for treatment of patients with CRS.

METHODS

A decision tree model was developed to estimate the cost and effectiveness in each strategy. Costs and effects were estimated from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective over a 6-month time horizon. Model pathways and parameters were informed by existing clinical guidelines and literature and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties in base-case assumptions.

RESULTS

Over a 6-month time horizon, inserting CESI at the end of FESS is less costly (£4646 vs. £4655 per patient) and is the more effective intervention [total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 6 months 0.443 vs. 0.444] than non-corticosteroid-eluting spacers; hence, it is a dominant strategy. The probabilistic analysis results indicate that CESI following FESS has a 62% probability of being cost effective at the £20,000/per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and 56% probability of being a cost-saving intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CESI after FESS results in fewer post-operative complications than non-corticosteroid-eluting implants and may be a cost-saving technology over a 6-month time horizon. Although the cost of initial treatment with the CESI is greater, cost savings are made due to a reduction in the number of complications experienced.

Intraoperative Applications of Topical Corticosteroid Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of recent techniques and technologies for the application of topical corticosteroid therapy immediately following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

METHODS

A comprehensive search in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases was conducted to identify publications between January 2000 and December 2019 detailing clinical trials that have evaluated the efficacy and safety of intraoperative applications of topical corticosteroids for CRS.

RESULTS

A total of 21 articles, all of which highlight a variety of corticosteroid-infused products, including Propel corticosteroid-eluting stents, NasoPore, Merocel, SinuBand, calcium alginate, and bioresorbable gel-type products, are included for review. Propel stents are the only devices that have achieved level 1A evidence in terms of efficacy and have data to support their safety. The remaining products have shown mixed results in terms of efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSION

A wide range of techniques and technologies have been introduced to enhance the topical delivery of corticosteroids into the neosinuses after ESS for CRS. Regarding efficacy, there is level 1A evidence to support the use of Propel stents. Most of the remaining strategies show some degree of efficacy. Direct comparisons across the different strategies are limited owing to the varied uses of delivery vectors, corticosteroid choices, and doses of corticosteroids. Propel stents and SinuBand have sufficient data to support systemic and ocular safety, whereas the remaining products have limited data to support their safety.

Systematic literature review of humanistic and economic burdens of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies to determine the humanistic (e.g. health-related/disease-specific quality of life [QOL]) and economic (e.g. direct and indirect costs) burdens of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP).

METHODS

The SLR adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases were searched using OVID. Relevant studies involving adult patients with CRSwNP published between 1 January 2008 and 16 February 2019 were included, with relevant conference abstracts from 1 January 2017, onward.

RESULTS

Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT)-22 was the most frequently used disease-specific health-related QOL/patient-reported outcomes instrument for patients with CRSwNP. Baseline SNOT-22 scores ranged from 25 to 73 for surgical candidates and from 14 to 56 for medically managed patients with CRSwNP. Mean baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index for patients with CRSwNP ranged from 0.81 to 0.86, and mean baseline Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D) ranged from 0.67 to 0.75. Three months (EQ-5D) and 5 years (SF-6D) post-endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), rates increased from 0.81 to 0.89 and from 0.69 to 0.80, respectively. One year post-diagnosis, patients with CRSwNP had significantly more systemic prescriptions, underwent significantly more medical procedures, demonstrated greater health care resource utilization and had significantly greater mean health care costs compared with matched controls (all p < .001). Overall, for patients with initial ESS, CRSwNP was associated with higher disease-related expenditures compared with CRS without nasal polyposis (NP), even for patients who did not undergo revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR identified substantial humanistic burden among surgery candidates. RWE shows that surgeries were used to treat relatively more severe CRSwNP patients as recommended by guidelines. Patient QOL is improved significantly after surgery; however, there is a lack of evidence on patients with revision surgery. Surgery is also associated with higher costs, and the presence of NP was a predictor of revision surgery. Patients with CRSwNP demonstrate greater health care resource utilization and costs compared to those with CRS without NP. Costs associated with different severity of CRSwNP and revision surgery need to be assessed further.

The Effect of Triamcinolone-Soaked Gelfoam in Patients with Polypoid Mucosal Change after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

Background and Objectives: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) recurs frequently after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The aim of study was to evaluate the efficacy of triamcinolone-soaked absorbable gelatin foam (gelfoam) as a treatment for recurred polypoid changes after ESS.Subjects and Method: A total of 35 patients and 57 nasal cavities was retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent triamcinolone- infused gelfoam packing for 1 week under nasal endoscopic guidance. Endoscopic scores were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. We analyzed clinical characteristics between success and failure groups.Results: Endoscopic scores were significantly improved after triamcinolone-soaked gelfoam packing, and the effects were maintained at 3-month follow-up (1.85±0.61 vs. 0.82±0.77, p＜0.001). Duration between surgery and gelfoam packing was shorter in the success group compared to the failure group (8.2±6.9 vs. 13.7±8.4 weeks, p=0.033). Serum eosinophil cationic protein and tissue eosinophil counts were significantly higher in the failure group (p=0.025 and p=0.010, respectively).Conclusion: Triamcinolone-soaked gelfoam packing is an effective and safe method for managing recurrent polypoid change in patients with CRSwNP after ESS. Early intervention contributed to a successful result, and eosinophilic inflammation was associated with poor outcomes.

Topical therapies for management of chronic rhinosinusitis: steroid implants

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) causes severe symptoms that lead to poor quality of life. When optimal medical therapy does not improve CRS symptoms, then endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) can be used in patients with persistent symptoms and radiographic evidence of CRS to improve patients' symptoms and quality of life. Despite appropriate and complete sinus surgery, there can be issues after sinus surgery such as synechiae formation and recurrence of polyps in certain CRS patients that can decrease long-term outcomes. Corticosteroids are used to decrease postoperative scarring and edema as well as prevent recurrence of nasal polyp formation after sinus surgery. However, the use of oral or systemic steroid can lead to serious short-term and long-term complications. Therefore, a safer alternative would be the topical delivery of steroid via steroid-eluting sinus implants.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating steroid-eluting implants. Two forms of steroid-eluting implants were identified, Propel family products and Sinuva. The research findings from clinical studies using various steroid-eluting sinus implants are reviewed and discussed.

RESULTS

Four prospective randomized clinical studies were identified for the Propel family products. Two prospective randomized clinical studies were identified for Sinuva. The results from the clinical studies showed that the use of the various steroid-eluting sinus implants can improve postoperative results after ESS as well as treat the recurrence of nasal polyps after sinus surgery without the need for additional sinus surgery.

CONCLUSION

The novel steroid-eluting implants appear to be beneficial for CRS patients immediately post-operatively as well as for nasal polyps patients. Interestingly, these implants could be used as a substitute for the beneficial effect of systemic steroid use for CRS patients.

Evaluation of a steroid releasing sinus implant for the treatment of patients undergoing frontal sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis

INTRODUCTION

Management of the frontal sinus places great demands on the otolaryngologist. Given that the fronto-ethmoidal region is susceptible to recurrent inflammation, scarring, and stenosis, maintaining long-term patency of the frontal sinus is a difficult challenge. Oral and topical anti-inflammatory therapy, post-operative stenting, and 'home-brew' drug elution have been used for the treatment of the frontal sinus with mixed success. Recently an implant has been approved for post-operative placement into the frontal recess. This implant provides reliable and consistent steroid drug elution to address inflammation of the frontal recess secondary to chronic sinusitis. Areas covered: This review discusses the development and application of steroid eluting implants in the postoperative care of patients with chronic frontal sinusitis. All randomized controlled trials evaluating steroid eluting implants are discussed. Relevant supporting material discussing background, economics, safety are included. Expert commentary: Steroid eluting implants fulfill a unique niche in the treatment following frontal sinus surgery. They are shown to decrease the need for post-operative interventions and improve outcomes in patients with chronic sinusitis. There is significant potential for growth in the use of steroid eluting implants.

Budget impact analysis of bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implants following endoscopic sinus surgery

OBJECTIVE

Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective.

METHODS

An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results.

RESULTS

For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from -$0.003 to $0.036, respectively, for all members in the health plan. Sensitivity analyses identified the cost of Propel, probability of polyposis recurrence requiring medical intervention, probability of adhesion formation requiring surgical intervention, and the treatment costs for polyposis as the primary parameters influencing the results.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the use of Propel following ESS procedures has a negligible impact on the budget of a US self-insured employer or payer. The upfront cost of Propel was offset by savings associated with reduced probability for polyp recurrence, adhesion formation, and their subsequent treatment.

Chronic rhinosinusitis: the rationale for current treatments

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a broad clinical syndrome linked by mucosal inflammation. Primary treatment modalities are corticosteroids and antibiotics with surgery an option for failures, but the level of supporting evidence is generally low. The primary reason is that CRS is a symptom complex and not a specific disease. Areas covered: The primary treatment modalities for CRS are corticosteroids, antibiotics and surgery. Corticosteroids, which have very broad anti-inflammatory properties, also have the strongest evidence for efficacy. Antibiotics are likely effective in a subpopulation of patients but the various phenotypes and endotypes that make up CRS have thus far been poorly defined. Early surgery as well as biologics may also be more efficacious and cost effective in some phenotypes as well. Expert commentary: A better understanding of the inflammatory pathways that drive CRS will permit investigators to separate patient groups. This will allow for clinical trials that target specific subpopulations and more personalized therapy for CRS patients in the future.

Health utility outcomes in patients undergoing medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis: a prospective multiinstitutional study

BACKGROUND

A health utility value represents an individual's preference for living in a specific health state and is used in cost-utility analyses. This study investigates the impact of continuing medical therapy on health utility outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

METHODS

The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-6D (SF-6D) questionnaire was administered to patients prospectively enrolled in a longitudinal study examining treatment outcomes for CRS. Patients were prescribed robust, initial medical therapy and then elected to continue with medical therapy (n = 40) or undergo endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), followed by medical therapy (n = 152). Patients observed through treatment crossover to ESS were also evaluated (n = 20). Health utility values (SF-6D) were generated at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months follow-up for both cohorts and evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Treatment crossover patients were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of previous sinus surgery compared to medical management (χ(2) = 6.91; p = 0.009) and surgical intervention (χ(2) = 8.11; p = 0.004) subgroups. Mean baseline utility value for the medical therapy cohort was significantly better compared to the ESS cohort (mean ± standard deviation; 0.76 ± 0.12 vs 0.70 ± 0.15; p = 0.023). Significant improvement in health utility was reported in the ESS cohort (F(2) = 37.69; p < 0.001), whereas values remained stable, without significant improvement, in both the medical therapy cohort (F(2) = 0.03; p = 0.967) and treatment crossover cohort (F(2) = 2.36; p = 0.115).

CONCLUSION

Patients electing continued medical management report better baseline health utility compared to patients electing ESS. Patients electing ESS show significant improvement in health utility, whereas those electing continued medical management demonstrate stable health utility over 12 months.

Cost of adult chronic rhinosinusitis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE/STUDY DESIGN

The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the literature evaluating the costs associated with the management of adult chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

METHODS

Two separate authors systematically searched eight commonly used medical databases. Included articles were categorized into seven domains: 1) overall healthcare cost (direct and indirect), 2) resource utilization, 3) medical management strategies, 4) overall procedure cost of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), 5) intraoperative technologies, 6) ESS litigation, and 7) CRS diagnostics. To maintain a common currency for comparison, all costs were converted to 2014 United States dollars (USD) using an inflation calculator in September 2014.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were identified for inclusion. The range for overall CRS-related healthcare costs was $6.9 to $9.9 billion 2014 USD per year. Indirect costs were estimated as $13 billion 2014 USD per year. Annual medication costs prior to ESS ranged between $1,547 and $2,700 2014 USD per patient, with a uniform reduction in costs after ESS. The overall US cost of outpatient ESS ranged from $8,200 to $10,500 2014 USD per case. The overall annual economic burden of CRS in the United States was estimated to be $22 billion 2014 USD (direct and indirect costs).

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review have demonstrated substantial direct and indirect costs associated with the management of adult CRS. Future research should continue to improve the costing data, which can be used to improve the value of care provided for this chronic inflammatory disease.