一项预算影响分析显示,在未做过鼻窦手术的未控制的慢性鼻窦炎合并鼻息肉患者中,生物制剂作为一线治疗的额外费用是压倒性的。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Rhinology Pub Date : 2025-05-23 DOI:10.4193/Rhin24.418
M Fieux, J Margier, S Bartier, M Chang, F Carsuzaa, P H Hwang, Z M Patel, S Tringali, V Favier, T Savary
{"title":"一项预算影响分析显示,在未做过鼻窦手术的未控制的慢性鼻窦炎合并鼻息肉患者中,生物制剂作为一线治疗的额外费用是压倒性的。","authors":"M Fieux, J Margier, S Bartier, M Chang, F Carsuzaa, P H Hwang, Z M Patel, S Tringali, V Favier, T Savary","doi":"10.4193/Rhin24.418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both surgery and biologics offer comparable control rates for patients with uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) but differ in terms of cost and complications. The aim was to assess the mean total direct cost per patient of biologics or surgery as first-line treatment in uncontrolled CRSwNP and to perform a budget impact analysis (BIA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An economic model was build based on pricing of March 2024, and on the theoretical French population to simulate both the 5-year mean direct cost per patient and the BIA. For the BIA, two scenarios were evaluated: in scenario 1 (the normal one), 18% of patients received biologics as first-line (vs 82% surgery) and in scenario 2 (the less likely one), 90% of patients received biologics as first-line (vs 10% surgery). Within both scenarios, two approaches were considered, the surgical one (when patients received surgery as first-line) and the biological one (when patients received biologics as first-line, no previous sinus surgery).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 5 years, the estimated mean direct cost per patient per year was significantly lower in the surgical approach compared to the biological one (60,026€). The BIA found that the estimated net overall incremental budget impact was 91,287,924€ in scenario 1 and 1,024,768,639€ in scenario 2. In both scenarios, the biological approach was the most expensive (+184% and +1048%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At current costs, if biologics were used as a first-line treatment (no previous sinus surgery) in patients with uncontrolled CRSwNP, the extra direct cost would be overwhelming.</p>","PeriodicalId":21361,"journal":{"name":"Rhinology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The extra cost of biologics as first-line treatment in uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps with no previous sinus surgery is overwhelming: a budget impact analysis.\",\"authors\":\"M Fieux, J Margier, S Bartier, M Chang, F Carsuzaa, P H Hwang, Z M Patel, S Tringali, V Favier, T Savary\",\"doi\":\"10.4193/Rhin24.418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both surgery and biologics offer comparable control rates for patients with uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) but differ in terms of cost and complications. The aim was to assess the mean total direct cost per patient of biologics or surgery as first-line treatment in uncontrolled CRSwNP and to perform a budget impact analysis (BIA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An economic model was build based on pricing of March 2024, and on the theoretical French population to simulate both the 5-year mean direct cost per patient and the BIA. For the BIA, two scenarios were evaluated: in scenario 1 (the normal one), 18% of patients received biologics as first-line (vs 82% surgery) and in scenario 2 (the less likely one), 90% of patients received biologics as first-line (vs 10% surgery). Within both scenarios, two approaches were considered, the surgical one (when patients received surgery as first-line) and the biological one (when patients received biologics as first-line, no previous sinus surgery).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 5 years, the estimated mean direct cost per patient per year was significantly lower in the surgical approach compared to the biological one (60,026€). The BIA found that the estimated net overall incremental budget impact was 91,287,924€ in scenario 1 and 1,024,768,639€ in scenario 2. In both scenarios, the biological approach was the most expensive (+184% and +1048%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At current costs, if biologics were used as a first-line treatment (no previous sinus surgery) in patients with uncontrolled CRSwNP, the extra direct cost would be overwhelming.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhinology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhinology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin24.418\",\"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":"Rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin24.418","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:对于不受控制的慢性鼻窦炎合并鼻息肉(CRSwNP)患者,手术和生物制剂的控制率相当,但在成本和并发症方面存在差异。目的是评估生物制剂或手术作为不受控制的CRSwNP一线治疗的每位患者的平均总直接成本,并进行预算影响分析(BIA)。方法:基于2024年3月的定价和法国理论人口建立经济模型,模拟每位患者5年平均直接成本和BIA。对于BIA,评估了两种情况:在情况1(正常情况)中,18%的患者接受生物制剂作为一线治疗(82%的患者接受手术治疗);在情况2(可能性较小的情况)中,90%的患者接受生物制剂作为一线治疗(10%的患者接受手术治疗)。在这两种情况下,我们都考虑了两种方法,外科方法(患者接受手术作为一线)和生物方法(患者接受生物制剂作为一线,以前没有鼻窦手术)。结果:在5年的时间里,与生物方法(60,026欧元)相比,手术方法估计每位患者每年的平均直接成本显着降低。BIA发现,在情景1和情景2中,估计净总体增量预算影响分别为91,287,924欧元和1,024,768,639欧元。在这两种情况下,生物方法的成本最高(分别为+184%和+1048%)。结论:以目前的成本,如果将生物制剂作为不受控制的CRSwNP患者的一线治疗(没有既往鼻窦手术),额外的直接成本将是压倒性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The extra cost of biologics as first-line treatment in uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps with no previous sinus surgery is overwhelming: a budget impact analysis.

Background: Both surgery and biologics offer comparable control rates for patients with uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) but differ in terms of cost and complications. The aim was to assess the mean total direct cost per patient of biologics or surgery as first-line treatment in uncontrolled CRSwNP and to perform a budget impact analysis (BIA).

Methods: An economic model was build based on pricing of March 2024, and on the theoretical French population to simulate both the 5-year mean direct cost per patient and the BIA. For the BIA, two scenarios were evaluated: in scenario 1 (the normal one), 18% of patients received biologics as first-line (vs 82% surgery) and in scenario 2 (the less likely one), 90% of patients received biologics as first-line (vs 10% surgery). Within both scenarios, two approaches were considered, the surgical one (when patients received surgery as first-line) and the biological one (when patients received biologics as first-line, no previous sinus surgery).

Results: Over 5 years, the estimated mean direct cost per patient per year was significantly lower in the surgical approach compared to the biological one (60,026€). The BIA found that the estimated net overall incremental budget impact was 91,287,924€ in scenario 1 and 1,024,768,639€ in scenario 2. In both scenarios, the biological approach was the most expensive (+184% and +1048%, respectively).

Conclusion: At current costs, if biologics were used as a first-line treatment (no previous sinus surgery) in patients with uncontrolled CRSwNP, the extra direct cost would be overwhelming.

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
Rhinology
Rhinology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
15.80
自引率
9.70%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Rhinology serves as the official Journal of the International Rhinologic Society and is recognized as one of the journals of the European Rhinologic Society. It offers a prominent platform for disseminating rhinologic research, reviews, position papers, task force reports, and guidelines to an international scientific audience. The journal also boasts the prestigious European Position Paper in Rhinosinusitis (EPOS), a highly influential publication first released in 2005 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2012, and most recently in 2020. Employing a double-blind peer review system, Rhinology welcomes original articles, review articles, and letters to the editor.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信