Skip to main content
Log in

Cost Effectiveness of Nasal Budesonide versus Surgical Treatment for Nasal Polyps

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness study of nasal budesonide versus surgical treatment in the management of nasal polyps.

Design and methods: A decision-tree model reflecting two different treatment strategies for nasal polyps in Sweden was developed. The first strategy was initial polypectomy, performed under three different sets of circumstances: inpatient functional endoscopic surgery, outpatient evulsion with sedation, or outpatient evulsion with local anaesthesia; all treatments were followed by intranasal treatment with budesonide (Rhinocort®) 128µg twice daily. The second strategy was initial intranasal treatment with budesonide 128µg twice daily.

Perspective: Healthcare provider perspective.

Outcome measures and results: After 1 month, treatment with nasal budesonide was classified as a success (82.5%) or a failure (17.5%) based on clinical study data. In cases of success, the treatment was continued, and in cases of failure, polypectomy was undertaken, followed by budesonide 128µg twice daily. Treatments were evaluated after 4 months using prices from the Central Hospital in Skövde, Sweden. The expected reduction in cost from using initial nasal budesonide treatment compared with the different alternatives of polypectomy were 9760 Swedish kronors (SEK) for inpatient functional endoscopic surgery, SEK2747 for outpatient evulsion with sedation, and SEK672 for outpatient evulsion with anaesthesia (1998 values). Nasal budesonide 128µg twice daily treatment for nasal polyps revealed a potential reduction in costs of 53% compared with the primary surgery approach.

Conclusion: Initial treatment of nasal polyps with nasal budesonide provides lower costs than treatment with initial polypectomy with maintained effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of tradenames is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Mygind N, Lildholdt T, editors. Nasal polyposis: an inflammatory disease and its treatment. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lildholdt T. Surgical versus medical treatment of nasal polyps. Rhinol Suppl 1989; 8: 31–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Holmberg K, Karlsson G. Nasal polyps: medical or surgical management? Clin Exp Allergy 1996; 26 Suppl. 3: 23–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mygind N, Lildholt T. Nasal polyps treatment: medical management. Allergy Asthma Proc 1996; 17: 275–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Naclerio R, Mackay I. Guidelines for the management of nasal polyps. In: Mygind N, Lildholdt T, editors. Nasal polyposis: an inflammatory disease and its treatment. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1997: 177–80

    Google Scholar 

  6. Vendelbo Johansen L, Illum P, Kristensen S, et al. The effect of budesonide (Rhinocort®) in the treatment of small and medium-sized nasal polyps. Clin Otolaryngol 1993; 18: 524–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tos M, Svendstrup F, Arndal H, et al. Efficacy of an aqueous and powder formulation of nasal budesonide compared in patients with nasal polyps. Am J Rhinol 1998; 12: 183–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jankowski R, Schrewelius C, Bonfils P, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of budesonide aqueous nasal spray treatment in patients with nasal polyps. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 127 (4): 447–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Grimes DA. Technology follies: the uncritical acceptance of medical innovation. JAMA 1993; 269: 3030–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Banta HD, Luce BR. Health care technology and its assessment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kozma CM, Schulz RM, Sclar DA. A comparison of costs and efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and terfenadine tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 334–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kozma CM, Sadik MK, Watrous ML. Economic outcomes for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 (1): 4–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ståhl E, van Rompay W, Wang ECY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of budesonide aqueous nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2000; 84: 397–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gliklich R, Metson R. Economic implications of chronic sinusitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 118: 344–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lildholt T, Rundcrantz H, Bende M, et al. Glucocorticoid treatment for nasal polyps. The use of topical budesonide powder, intramuscular betamethasone, and surgical treatment. Arch Otalaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 123: 595–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. FASS®. Läkemedel i Sverige (Pharmaceuticals in Sweden). Kungsbacka, Sweden: Linfo Läkemedelsinformation AB, 1998

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Professor Björn Lindgren, Department of Community Medicine and Director of Lund University Centre for Health Economics (LUCHE) for advice.

This study was funded by AstraZeneca R&D Lund, Sweden. Dr Fredrik Berggren is employed by AstraZeneca.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Berggren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berggren, F., Johansson, L. Cost Effectiveness of Nasal Budesonide versus Surgical Treatment for Nasal Polyps. Pharmacoeconomics 21, 351–356 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00006

Keywords

Navigation