MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Budget Impact of a Steroid-Eluting Sinus Implant Versus Sinus Surgery for Adult Chronic Sinusitis Patients with Nasal Polyps.
Author: Ernst FR, Imhoff RJ, DeConde A, Manes RP.
Journal: J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2019 Aug; 25(8):941-950. PubMed ID: 30843454.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: A corticosteroid-eluting sinus implant was recently approved by the FDA as a drug to treat adult patients with nasal polyps who have undergone previous endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) of the ethmoid sinuses. ESS is performed in an operating room under general anesthesia, whereby diseased tissue and bone are removed to provide improved drainage. ESS typically involves dissection of 1 or more of the 4 paired sinus cavities (maxillary, ethmoid, sphenoid, or frontal). The implant, containing 1,350 mcg of mometasone furoate, is inserted by a physician in an office setting and offers controlled localized release of corticosteroid to the polypoid sinus tissue. The implant has demonstrated significant improvements in clinical testing; however, little research has been conducted on its economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and quantify the budget impact to a commercial payer of using this implant instead of ESS in patients with nasal polyps after a previous ESS. Since essentially all patients with recurrent nasal polyps after ESS are patients with chronic sinusitis (CS) diagnosis, this study also identified patients with CS with nasal polyposis (CSwNP) for consistency with the patient population studied in clinical trials evaluating the implant. METHODS: A budget impact analysis was conducted from a U.S. commercial payer perspective over a 1-year time horizon with patients who received the implant or revision ESS. Primary outcomes of interest were annual total and per-member per-month (PMPM) direct health care costs. Costs were estimated using a decision analysis model, assuming 50% implant utilization as an alternative to revision ESS in eligible patients, with other levels (25%, 75%) also considered. The model utilized the results of a recently published analysis of 86,052 patients in the Blue Health Intelligence database, results from published clinical trials evaluating the implant, a literature review, and published Medicare national payment amounts. RESULTS: A commercial health plan with 1 million members could anticipate 1,000 CSwNP patients as candidates for receiving the implant or revision ESS. Estimated direct treatment costs for refractory CSwNP using only revision ESS are $11.03 million ($0.92 PMPM). If the implant replaced surgery in 50% of cases and if 63% those patients received a second treatment with the implant during the year, the estimated total cost savings would be $2.56 million ($0.21 PMPM). Cost savings associated with using the implant changed to $0.11 PMPM and $0.32 PMPM with implant adoption of 25% and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large commercially insured U.S. population, annual revision ESS costs are substantial. Using the implant instead of revision ESS could result in considerable cost savings for payers at various levels of adoption. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Intersect ENT, which was involved in study design and manuscript review. Ernst and Imhoff are employed by CTI Clinical Trial and Consulting Services, which contracted with Intersect ENT to conduct this study. Ernst and Imhoff also report other financial support from Intersect ENT during the conduct of the study. DeConde reports personal fees from Intersect ENT during the conduct of the study, as well as personal fees from Optinose, Stryker Endoscopy, and Olympus, outside the submitted work. Manes reports grants from Intersect ENT during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Optinose and Sanofi outside the submitted work.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]