Economic evaluation of floseal compared to nasal packing for the management of anterior epistaxis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Floseal, a topically applied hemostatic agent, and nasal packing for the management of epistaxis in Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Outcomes research, a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to compare the costs and health outcomes of Floseal with nasal packing over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. A cycle length of 1 year was used. Efficacy of Floseal and packing was sought from the published literature. Unit costs were gathered from a hospital case costing system, whereas physician fees were extracted from the Ontario Schedule of Benefits for Physician Services. Results were expressed as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: From the perspective of a publicly funded health are system, the Floseal treatment strategy was associated with higher costs ($2,067) and greater QALYs (0.27) than nasal packing. Our findings were highly sensitive to discount rates, the cost of Floseal, and the cost of nasal packing. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probability that Floseal treatment is cost-effective reached 99% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was greater than $120,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies have demonstrated Floseal to be an effective treatment for anterior epistaxis. In the Canadian healthcare system, Floseal treatment appears to be a cost-effective treatment option compared to nasal packing for anterior epistaxis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c Laryngoscope, 1778-1782, 2018.

Early operative intervention versus conventional treatment in epistaxis: randomized prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomized trial was designed to compare intranasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESAL) with conventional nasal packing in the treatment of recurrent epistaxis. METHODS: Patients were registered in the study databank following referral for epistaxis control to the otolaryngology service at the University of Alberta. All patients were initially packed using Merocel (Xomed Surgical Products, Jacksonville, FL) nasal dressings bilaterally. Patients were enrolled in the study following failure of Merocel packings. Informed consent was obtained in accordance with the Health Research Ethics Board. The patients were then managed with Vaseline nasal packs or ESAL. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, number of hospitalization days, and rates of recurrence were recorded prospectively. The total cost of treatment for each patient was calculated. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled in the study. There was a significant reduction in cost and length of hospitalization of the patients undergoing ESAL compared with the conventional nasal packings. ESAL was also 89% effective in controlling the bleeding and had minimal sequelae or complications. The overall calculated cost of patients undergoing ESAL was dollars 5133 compared with dollars 12213 in the conservative group, resulting in an average saving of dollars 7080 per patient. There was overwhelming patient satisfaction with ESAL compared with nasal packings. CONCLUSION: ESAL is an excellent, well-tolerated, and cost-effective method of treating recurrent epistaxis.

The trimonthly combination oral contraceptive regimen: is it cost effective?

The extended use of combination oral contraceptive pills (COCPs) to decrease the frequency of withdrawal bleeding can be convenient and beneficial to women. We conducted a cost-effective analysis comparing the standard regimen (21 days of estrogen/progestin) to a trimonthly regimen (84 days of estrogen/progestin) followed by a pill-free week for 1-year. The economic savings for patient out-of-pocket expenses from decreased sanitary product usage as a result of nine fewer withdrawal bleeding episodes is offset by the cost of three extra packages of COCPs from the trimonthly regimen. On the basis of an average use of 18 tampons per month, the trimonthly regimen is cost effective when the patient cost per package of pills is less than $9.45. The trimonthly regimen is also cost effective when the sanitary product usage is in the higher range; an above average use of 48 tampons per month is cost effective when the patient cost per package of pills is less than $25.20. Therefore, the trimonthly regimen may be useful for women with menorrhagia, but for the average women, the qualitative benefits of less frequent withdrawal bleeding need to be weighed against an increase in cost.

PIP: The extended use of combination oral contraceptives (COCs) to decrease the frequency of withdrawal bleeding can be convenient and beneficial to women. The authors conducted a cost-effective analysis comparing the standard regimen (21 days of estrogen/progestin) to a trimonthly regimen (84 days of estrogen/progestin) followed by a pill-free week for 1-year. The economic savings for patient out-of-pocket expenses from decreased sanitary product usage as a result of 9 fewer withdrawal bleeding episodes is offset by the cost of three extra packages of COCs from the trimonthly regimen. On the basis of an average use of 18 tampons per month, the trimonthly regimen is cost-effective when the patient cost per package of pills is less than $9.45. The trimonthly regimen is also cost-effective when the sanitary product usage is in the higher range; an above average use of 48 tampons per month is cost-effective when the patient cost per package of pills is less than $25.20. Therefore, the trimonthly regimen may be useful for women with menorrhagia, but for the average women, the qualitative benefits of less frequent withdrawal bleeding need to be weighed against an increase in cost.