Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing in-office posterior nasal nerve ablation to surgical therapies

Abstract

BackgroundRecently, in-office posterior nasal nerve ablation (PNA) devices have offered a new tool to treat refractory chronic rhinitis, but their cost-effectiveness relative to traditional interventions such as vidian neurectomy (VN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN) remains unexplored. ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in patients with refractory chronic rhinitis. MethodsA decision tree with embedded Markov models was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of PNN, VN, and PNA, measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 30-year time horizon with a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were completed. ResultsSensitivity analysis found that in-office PNA became cost-effective compared to VN when patients undergoing PNA were less than 20 % more likely than VN to have symptoms recur; this value was assumed to be twice as likely in the base case. In the base case, however, VN and in-office PNA were more effective and less expensive than PNN, while VN was cost-effective when compared to in-office PNA (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $11,616.24/QALY). Other assumptions were not found to considerably impact incremental cost-effectiveness. ConclusionAlthough highly limited by currently available data, PNA may be cost-effective compared to VN as long-term outcomes on the durability of its effects emerge. These data should not be used by payers considering coverage or utilization since long-term data is still nascent. However, that as new technologies emerge for rhinitis, it will be important to monitor longer-term outcomes to identify high value care, but based on limited data PNA devices may meet this standard.