A cost utility analysis for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis
- PMID: 39302214
- PMCID: PMC11785155
- DOI: 10.1002/alr.23452
A cost utility analysis for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis
Abstract
Background: The management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) is understudied and the most cost-effective management of AECRS has not been previously investigated. The aim of this study is to determine the most cost-effective strategy for the initial management of AECRS.
Methods: The study design consisted of a decision-tree economic model comparing three different initial strategies for managing a patient perceived AECRS: observation, upfront rescue medications, or clinic visit with diagnostic nasal endoscopy (DNE). The primary study outcome was the disease burden of a single AECRS, which was determined by the health utility value and the duration of symptoms. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio < $50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or equivalently < $137/quality-adjusted life day (QALD) were considered cost-effective.
Results: Observation was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness to pay of $137 per QALD. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that observation was more effective than upfront rescue medications when the probability of bacterial infection as the cause of AECRS was <24.0%. Upfront rescue medications wer more cost effective than observation when the probability of bacterial infection exceeded 49.0%. Clinic visit with DNE was the most effective strategy to manage an AECRS, but it was not considered cost-effective.
Conclusion: Observation is the most cost-effective strategy for the initial management of AECRS when there is a low likelihood of bacterial infection. When the probability of bacterial etiology of AECRS exceeds 49.0%, upfront rescue medications proved to be the most cost-effective strategy.
Keywords: AECRS; acute exacerbations; antibiotics; chronic rhinosinusitis; corticosteroids; cost‐effectiveness; management; treatment.
© 2024 The Author(s). International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy and American Rhinologic Society.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no financial disclosures or conflicts of interests relevant to this manuscript.
Figures
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
