Search

Background: Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab are the three biologics currently approved for use in CRSwNP in Canada. Despite evidence of efficacy, their cost-effectiveness, which is a key factor influencing prescribing patterns, has not yet been compared to each other. Methods: A cost-effectiveness model using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed using a Decision Tree Markov analysis. A third-party healthcare payer perspective and a 10-year time horizon was used. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab were each compared to each other. Results: Omalizumab was the most cost-effective biologic using current estimates of cost and efficacy in CRSwNP. Using omalizumab as a baseline, dupilumab had an ICER of $235,305/QALY. Mepolizumab was dominated by omalizumab and dupilumab at the current drug prices and estimates of efficacy. Sensitivity analyses determined that when increasing the WTP threshold to $150,000/QALY, dupilumab became cost-effective compared to omalizumab in 22.5% of simulation scenarios. Additionally, altering dosing frequency had a significant effect on cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: When comparing the relative cost-effectiveness of biologics in recalcitrant CRSwNP, omalizumab currently appears to be the most cost-effective option. Future reductions in drug prices, adjustments to currently approved dosing regimens, better patient selection, and improvements in sinus surgery outcomes will challenge the current cost-effectiveness models and necessitate reassessment as treatments for CRSwNP continue to evolve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have emerged as an alternative to opioids for optimal postoperative pain management. However, the adoption of NSAIDs in sinonasal surgery has been impeded by a theoretical concern for postoperative bleeding. Our objective is to systematically review the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for patients undergoing sinonasal surgery. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched from inception to January 27, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies in any language were considered. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. Our outcomes were postoperative pain scores, requirement for rescue analgesia, and postoperative adverse events (epistaxis, nausea/vomiting). Results: Out of 4661 records, 15 RCTs (enrolling 1210 patients) and two observational studies were included. Following endoscopic sinus surgery, there was no difference in pain scores between NSAIDs and non‐NSAIDs groups (standardized mean differences [SMD] 0.44 units better, 95% CI –0.18 to 1.05). Following septorhinoplasty, NSAIDs decreased pain scores compared to non‐NSAID regimens (SMD 1.14 units better, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.67 units better). Overall, NSAIDs reduced the need for rescue medication with a relative risk (RR) of 0.45 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.84). In addition, NSAIDs decreased the risk of nausea with an RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.91) and did not increase the risk of epistaxis (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.23‐2.22). Conclusion: Among patients undergoing sinonasal surgery, NSAIDs are beneficial in postoperative pain management and avoidance of postoperative nausea without increasing the risk of postoperative epistaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]