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.