ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2026
Cost Utility Analysis of Fluticasone Exhalation Delivery System Versus Budesonide Nasal Irrigation for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.
Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is managed after sinus surgery with topical corticosteroids. Given limited distribution of nasal steroid sprays, patients have the option of either steroid nasal irrigation (SNI) or exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of EDS-FLU compared to SNI for CRSwNP.
methodsA cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 33-year time horizon was developed in TreeAgePro. Because EDS-FLU is not currently covered by Medicare, costs of medications were estimated using retail pricing. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY) was used to determine cost-effectiveness. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.
resultsEDS-FLU had an incremental benefit of 0.41 QALYs compared to SNI. In base case analysis, EDS-FLU costs $140,966.63 after the study period, whereas SNI costs $40,817.50. With an ICER of $244,185.37/QALY, SNI is the more cost-effective strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis reported SNI as the cost-effective strategy in 98.50% of simulations.
conclusionsCompared to EDS-FLU, SNI is the cost-effective strategy for treating CRSwNP following FESS. Changes in drug pricing and improvements in patient selection may cause adjustments in the most cost-effective strategy for CRSwNP management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.