ENTtoday
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Practice Focus
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Departments
    • Issue Archive
    • TRIO Best Practices
      • Allergy
      • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
      • Head and Neck
      • Laryngology
      • Otology/Neurotology
      • Pediatric
      • Rhinology
      • Sleep Medicine
    • Career Development
    • Case of the Month
    • Everyday Ethics
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Medical Education
    • Online Exclusives
    • Practice Management
    • Resident Focus
    • Rx: Wellness
    • Special Reports
    • Tech Talk
    • Viewpoint
    • What’s Your O.R. Playlist?
  • Literature Reviews
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Events
    • Featured Events
    • TRIO Meetings
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Triological Society
    • Advertising Staff
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise
    • Place an Ad
    • Classifieds
    • Rate Card
  • Search

Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyposis

by Elizabeth Hofheinz, MPH, MEd • June 9, 2019

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

We need to be sensitive to cost, particularly as it relates to new drug development and how these costs factor into patient choices. —Erica R. Thaler, MD

You Might Also Like

  • Are New Biologics a Game Changer for Treating Nasal Polyposis?
  • Do Preoperative Corticosteroids Benefit Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis?
  • What Is the Role of Nasal Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Chronic Rhinosinusitis?
  • Tips for Treating Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Irrigation
Explore This Issue
June 2019

Cost Effectiveness

Michael G. Stewart, MD, MPH, professor and chairman in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Weill Medical College of Cornell University and otolaryngologist-in-chief at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, addressed the issue of cost effectiveness (CE) assessment of biologics, which he said can be fairly complex.

“The concept of CE is cost divided by effectiveness,” he explained. “For example, if you start with something that costs $10,000 and it gives you 0.4 units of improvement in some outcome measure, that is $25,000 per unit of improvement. And if you have a $9,000 treatment that gives you 0.3 units, that would be $30,000 per unit of improvement, and that treatment is less costly but is also less cost effective.

He said it is important to remember that the cost is not just what is charged to the patient or their insurance; it is desirable to use cost rather than charges, but it also can be challenging to establish what the actual costs are. He added, “It can be equally difficult to assess exactly what is the effectiveness—is it an improved CT score, fewer admissions for asthma, a better quality of life, etc.?”

When measuring effectiveness, it is also important to assess duration of effect, said Dr. Stewart. Researchers typically used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure the value of health outcomes, and this is assessed by multiplying the utility of an outcome state with its duration in years. In the U.S., it is generally accepted that a level of acceptable cost effectiveness is approximately $50,000/QALY or less. “For example,” he added, “with cochlear implantation, cost effectiveness was calculated as $12,000 to $15,000/QALY. So, although it is an expensive one-time intervention, it is cost effective over the long term. Compare that to joint replacement ($20,000/QALY) and a coronary artery bypass graft in a 70-year old ($90,000/QALY).”

“Examining a 2019 Annals of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology study from Anderson and Stanley, we see that the calculated cost effectiveness of biologics for asthma is $325,000–$391,000/QALY (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019;122:367–372); so, the drugs are not only expensive, they are not very cost effective when compared to other treatments. In addition, the incremental (or additional) cost effectiveness ratio of biologics versus long-term steroids in asthma is $174,000/QALY. The authors calculated that a 67% to 80% discount in drug price would be needed to reach an acceptable comparative level of cost effectiveness,” Dr. Stewart added.

Erica R. Thaler, MD, is professor and vice chair of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadephia. Painting a clear picture of reality, Dr. Thaler said, “I am going to attempt to put some context around the issue of cost analysis so that you can understand what you’re suggesting to patients. We need to be sensitive to cost, particularly as it relates to new drug development and how these costs factor into patient choices. I will say that at least now we have more alternatives. When I graduated from residency in 1995, we were telling patients that their only options were surgery or Prednisone. And now, here we are 25 years later, and we are just beginning to have viable alternatives.”

The cost of bilateral endoscopic sinus surgery varies greatly by code, and the charges also differ by institution, with the institutional charges not including anesthesia or hospital fees, she said. “I think it is fair to say that you can double surgeons’ fees numbers if you think about this in an all-inclusive manner,” she added.

Regarding traditional medical therapy, Dr. Thaler noted that Prednisone is the “workhorse” when it comes to NP, largely because it is inexpensive. “Even topical steroids such as fluticasone aren’t overly economically burdensome. Lavage is relatively expensive, with a [prescription of] .25/mg/2ml daily costing $281/month. Montelukast is pricey, with 10 mg costing $248.22. Compared to biologics, however, these are all relatively inexpensive,” she said.

Putting your patients on a biologic will cost approximately $40,000 per year; insurance will cover some of this expense, but this will vary according to payer, she added. “The bottom line is that there is no set algorithm for patients with chronic sinusitis and nasal polyposis. The physician and patient, in partnership, need to figure out what is best for overall patient outcome. Cost-benefit should be first and foremost related to the medical care of the patient.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Filed Under: Features, Practice Focus, Rhinology Tagged With: biologic therapies, chronic rhinosinusitus, Nasal polyposis, nasal polyps, Triological Society Annual Meeting 2019Issue: June 2019

You Might Also Like:

  • Are New Biologics a Game Changer for Treating Nasal Polyposis?
  • Do Preoperative Corticosteroids Benefit Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis?
  • What Is the Role of Nasal Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Chronic Rhinosinusitis?
  • Tips for Treating Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Irrigation

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

The Laryngoscope
Ensure you have all the latest research at your fingertips; Subscribe to The Laryngoscope today!

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Open access journal in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery is currently accepting submissions.

Classifieds

View the classified ads »

TRIO Best Practices

View the TRIO Best Practices »

Top Articles for Residents

  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Why More MDs, Medical Residents Are Choosing to Pursue Additional Academic Degrees
  • What Physicians Need to Know about Investing Before Hiring a Financial Advisor
  • Tips to Help You Regain Your Sense of Self
  • Should USMLE Step 1 Change from Numeric Score to Pass/Fail?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Experts Delve into Treatment Options for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Is the Training and Cost of a Fellowship Worth It? Here’s What Otolaryngologists Say
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • New Developments in the Management of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Eustachian Tuboplasty: A Potential New Option for Chronic Tube Dysfunction and Patulous Disease
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Why Virtual Grand Rounds May Be Here to Stay
    • Otolaryngologist Leverages His Love of Pinball into Second Business
    • These New Imaging Advances May Help to Protect Parathyroids
    • Is the Training and Cost of a Fellowship Worth It? Here’s What Otolaryngologists Say
    • Which Otologic Procedures Poses the Greatest Risk of Aerosol Generation?

Polls

Have you used 3D-printed materials in your otolaryngology practice?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Visit: The Triological Society • The Laryngoscope • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology

Wiley
© 2021 The Triological Society. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN 1559-4939

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
This site uses cookies: Find out more.