Search

Background The surgical insertion of Ventilation Tubes (VTs) for the management of persistent bilateral Otitis Media with Effusion (OME) in children remains a contentious issue due to the varying opinions regarding the risks and benefits of this procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of VTs insertion for the management of persistent bilateral OME in children, providing an additional perspective on the management of one of the commonest medical conditions of childhood. Methods A decision-tree model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of VTs strategy compared with the Hearing Aids (HAs) alone and HAs plus VTs strategies. The model used data from published sources, and assumed a 2-year time horizon and UK NHS perspective for costs. Outcomes were computed as Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) by attaching a utility value to the total potential gains in Hearing Level in decibels (dBHL) over 12 and 24 months. Modelling uncertainty in the specification of decision-tree probabilities and QALYs was performed through Monte Carlo simulation. Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) and partial EVPI (EVPPI) analyses were conducted to estimate the potential value of future research and uncertainty associated with the key parameters. Results The VTs strategy was more effective and less costly when compared with the HAs plus VTs strategy, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the VTs strategy compared with the HAs strategy was £5,086 per QALY gained. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability that the VTs strategy is likely to be more cost-effective was 0.58. The EVPI value at population level of around £9.5 million at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 indicated that future research in this area is potentially worthwhile, while the EVPPI analysis indicated considerable uncertainty surrounding the parameters used for computing the QALYs for which more precise estimates would be most valuable. Conclusions The VTs strategy is a cost-effective option when compared with the HAs alone and HAs plus VTs strategies, but the need for additional information from future study is evident to inform this surgical treatment choice. Future studies of surgical and non-surgical treatment of OME in childhood should evaluate the economic impact of pertinent interventions to provide greater context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The surgical insertion of Ventilation Tubes (VTs) for the management of persistent bilateral Otitis Media with Effusion (OME) in children remains a contentious issue due to the varying opinions regarding the risks and benefits of this procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of VTs insertion for the management of persistent bilateral OME in children, providing an additional perspective on the management of one of the commonest medical conditions of childhood.Methods: A decision-tree model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of VTs strategy compared with the Hearing Aids (HAs) alone and HAs plus VTs strategies. The model used data from published sources, and assumed a 2-year time horizon and UK NHS perspective for costs. Outcomes were computed as Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) by attaching a utility value to the total potential gains in Hearing Level in decibels (dBHL) over 12 and 24 months. Modelling uncertainty in the specification of decision-tree probabilities and QALYs was performed through Monte Carlo simulation. Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) and partial EVPI (EVPPI) analyses were conducted to estimate the potential value of future research and uncertainty associated with the key parameters.Results: The VTs strategy was more effective and less costly when compared with the HAs plus VTs strategy, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the VTs strategy compared with the HAs strategy was £ 5,086 per QALY gained. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY, the probability that the VTs strategy is likely to be more cost-effective was 0.58. The EVPI value at population level of around £ 9.5 million at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000 indicated that future research in this area is potentially worthwhile, while the EVPPI analysis indicated considerable uncertainty surrounding the parameters used for computing the QALYs for which more precise estimates would be most valuable.Conclusions: The VTs strategy is a cost-effective option when compared with the HAs alone and HAs plus VTs strategies, but the need for additional information from future study is evident to inform this surgical treatment choice. Future studies of surgical and non-surgical treatment of OME in childhood should evaluate the economic impact of pertinent interventions to provide greater context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Flexible nasendoscopy (FNE) is an invaluable multi-disciplinary tool for upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) examination. During the COVID-19 pandemic concerns were raised that FNE had the potential of generating aerosols resulting in human cross-contamination when performed on SARS-COV2 carriers. In the UK, and other European countries, national guidelines were issued restricting FNE to essential cases. We surveyed ENT-UK members and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) members to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (first peak) on FNE practice in the UK. Methods: An observational internet-based survey constructed in accordance to the CHERRIES checklist and setup in SurveyMonkey of FNE practice amongst UK-based ENT surgeons and speech and language therapists in community clinics, the outpatient department, inpatient wards, ICU, emergency department and operating theatres (through the NHS and private sector) prior to, during and following the first COVID-19 wave in the UK. Results: 314 responses collected (24% response rate), 82% from ENT clinicians, 17% from SLTs and 1% from other allied healthcare professionals. Overall, there has been a large reduction in the volume and indications for FNE during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic with limited recovery by mid-August 2020. Cancer and airway assessments were impacted less. A wide range of FNE protocols influenced by local factors are reported, varying in endoscope preference, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and sterilization methods. Where dedicated Aerosol Generating Procedure (AGP) rooms were unavailable, clinicians resorted to window opening and variable room "down-time" between patients. Endoscope preference reflected availability and user familiarity, ENT trainees favoring the use of single-use video endoscopes. Conclusion: Despite national guidance, local practice of FNE remains interrupted and highly variable in the UK. A collaborative inter-disciplinary approach is required to re-introduce FNE safely in volume across healthcare settings, re-establishing timely endoscopic diagnosis and pre-pandemic levels of patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute otitis media (AOM) is among the most common paediatric conditions managed in primary care. Most recent estimates of the cost of AOM date from a decade ago and lack a full societal perspective. We therefore explored the societal cost of childhood AOM in the Netherlands within the setting of a trial comparing the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at educating general practitioners (GPs) about pain management in AOM compared to usual care.Methods: Economic analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted between February 2015 and May 2018 in 37 practices (94 GPs). In total, 224 children with AOM were included of which 223 (99%) completed the trial (intervention: n = 94; control: n = 129). The cost of AOM due to health care costs, patient and family costs, and productivity losses by parent caregivers were retrieved from study diaries and primary care electronic health records, during 28-day follow-up. We calculated mean cost (€ and $) per AOM episode per patient with standard deviations (SD, in €) regardless of study group assignment because there was no clinical effect of the trial intervention. In sensitivity analysis, we calculated cost in the intervention and usual care group, after exclusion of extreme outliers.Results: Mean total AOM cost per patient were €565.93 or $638.78 (SD €1071.01); nearly 90% of these costs were due to productivity losses experienced by parents. After exclusion of outliers, AOM cost was €526.70 or $594.50 (SD €987.96) and similar in the intervention and usual care groups: €516.10 or $582.53 (SD €949.69) and €534.55 or $603.36 (SD €920.55) respectively.Conclusions: At €566 or $639 per episode, societal cost of AOM is higher than previously known and mainly driven by productivity losses by children's parents. Considering its high incidence, AOM poses a significant economic burden that extends beyond direct medical costs.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register no. NTR4920: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4920 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]