Economic impact analysis of a minimally invasive temperature-controlled radiofrequency device versus nasal surgery for the treatment of nasal airway obstruction in the United States

Figures & data

Figure 1. Model structure.

Table 1. Demographic and epidemiology data.

Parameter	Default value
Plan population size	1,000,000 (assumption)
Prevalence of NAO	30%^21^,^22
% of patients with NAO who seek treatment/visit physician	21%^4
% of patients with severe/extreme NAO	63%^5
% of patients with severe/extreme NAO for which NVC is primary cause	73%^5
% of eligible patients who receive 1L treatment each year	25%^4

Abbreviations. NAO, nasal airway obstruction; NVC, nasal valve collapse; 1L, first line.

Table 2. 1L treatment uptake inputs for reference and new scenario over 4 years after launch.

1L treatments	Y1 (%)	Y2 (%)	Y3 (%)	Y4 (%)
Reference scenario
TCRF + ITR	0	0	0	0
Functional rhinoplasty + septoplasty + ITR	100	100	100	100
TOTAL	100	100	100	100
New scenario
TCRF + ITR	20	30	40	40
Functional rhinoplasty + septoplasty + ITR	80	70	60	60
TOTAL	100	100	100	100

Abbreviations. ITR, inferior turbinate reduction; TCRF, temperature-controlled radiofrequency; 1L, first line; Y1, Year 1; Y2, Year 2; Y3, Year 3; Y4, Year 4.

Table 3. Model results.

Scenario	Y1	Y2	Y3	Y4	Total	Yearly average
Budget impact of TCRF with ITR	−$12,316,999	−$18,475,498	−$24,633,998	−$24,633,998	−$80,060,492	−$20,015,123
Change in number of 1L responders	214	322	429	429	1,394	348
Budget impact by 1L responder*	−$2,761	−$4,065	−$5,321	−$5,321	−$3,531	–
Change in number of surgeries	−1,449	−2,173	−2,897	−2,897	−9,416	−2,354

Abbreviations. ITR, inferior turbinate reduction; 1L, first line; TCRF, temperature-controlled radiofrequency; Y1, Year 1; Y2, Year 2; Y3, Year 3; Y4, Year 4.

* The total budget impact by responders represents an average. It is lower than the budget impact by responder for some of the years as it is calculated by dividing the total budget impact by the total number of responders.

Figure 2. Budget impact by cost type for all patients.

Figure 3. Tornado diagram of one-way sensitivity analysis for average budget impact.

Wever CC. The nasal airway: a critical review. Facial Plast Surg. 2016;32(1):17–21. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1570323.

 Google Scholar

Raithatha R, Del Signore A. Prevalence and identification of nasalairway obstruction in patients presenting to otolaryngology clinics: results from a large descriptive practice survey. Ear NoseThroat J. 2023:1455613231196670.

 Google Scholar

Schuman TA, Senior BA. Treatment paradigm for nasal airway obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2018;51(5):873–882. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2018.05.003.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clark DW, Del Signore AG, Raithatha R, et al. Nasal airway obstruction: prevalence and anatomic contributors. Ear Nose Throat J. 2018;97(6):173–176. doi: 10.1177/014556131809700615.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All data used in this study may be made available upon request.