慢性鼻炎急性加重期治疗的成本效用分析。

IF 7.2 2区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1002/alr.23452
Matthew M Chu, Jack T Garcia, Ahmad R Sedaghat, George A Scangas, Katie M Phillips
{"title":"慢性鼻炎急性加重期治疗的成本效用分析。","authors":"Matthew M Chu, Jack T Garcia, Ahmad R Sedaghat, George A Scangas, Katie M Phillips","doi":"10.1002/alr.23452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13716,"journal":{"name":"International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A cost utility analysis for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew M Chu, Jack T Garcia, Ahmad R Sedaghat, George A Scangas, Katie M Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/alr.23452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.23452\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.23452","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对慢性鼻炎急性加重期(AECRS)的管理研究不足,此前也未对最具成本效益的 AECRS 管理方法进行过调查。本研究旨在确定最具成本效益的 AECRS 初始治疗策略:研究设计了一个决策树经济模型,比较了三种不同的AECRS初始治疗策略:观察、前期抢救药物或鼻内窥镜诊断(DNE)门诊。主要研究结果是单次 AECRS 的疾病负担,由健康效用值和症状持续时间决定。具有增量成本效益比的策略 结果:观察是最具成本效益的策略,每 QALD 的支付意愿为 137 美元。单向敏感性分析表明,当细菌感染作为 AECRS 病因的概率为结论时,观察比前期抢救药物更有效:当细菌感染的可能性较低时,观察是最经济有效的 AECRS 初始治疗策略。当 AECRS 的细菌病因概率超过 49.0% 时,前期抢救用药被证明是最具成本效益的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A cost utility analysis for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
10.90%
发文量
185
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Forum of Allergy & Rhinologyis a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the Official Journal of the American Rhinologic Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy. International Forum of Allergy Rhinology provides a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and others to publish original research and explore controversies in the medical and surgical treatment of patients with otolaryngic allergy, rhinologic, and skull base conditions. The application of current research to the management of otolaryngic allergy, rhinologic, and skull base diseases and the need for further investigation will be highlighted.
期刊最新文献
Guidance for the evaluation by payors of claims submitted using Current Procedural Terminology codes 95165, 95115, and 95117. Making "scents" of nutrients: Investigating the relationship between olfactory dysfunction and vitamin intake. Surgery versus biologics for nasal polyposis: Perspective on contemporary data. Issue Information Ambient particulate matter and frequency of outpatient visits for chronic rhinosinusitis in the United States.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1