- This study addressed the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery versus biologic therapy for severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
- Researchers conducted an economic evaluation using 10-year projections for 89 patients (63 ESS, 26 biologics) within the Spanish National Health System.
- After two years, both treatments showed similar SNOT-22 improvements (ESS -31.8, biologics -31.0), but ESS costs were significantly lower at €5,302.78 versus €27,198.23.
- The authors concluded that while both treatments are effective, ESS is more efficient in the short term, with biologics offering long-term QALY gains at substantially higher costs.
- Biologics may be cost-effective within the Spanish NHS only with significant price reductions or for patients failing ESS.
Optimizing Management for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a persistent inflammatory condition that significantly impairs quality of life through symptoms like nasal obstruction and anosmia [1]. Given that recurrence is common even after intervention, clinicians face a crucial choice between two primary therapeutic strategies: endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and biologic therapies [2]. ESS has long been a cornerstone for providing anatomical relief, while biologics targeting type 2 inflammation have demonstrated efficacy in reducing polyp burden and improving symptoms, particularly in severe or refractory cases [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. A recent economic evaluation provides new data to help guide this decision, comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-efficiency of these distinct modalities within a national healthcare system [1].
Comparing Treatment Effectiveness and Cost-Efficiency
To clarify the value proposition of modern treatments for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), a new study provides a direct comparison of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and biologic therapy from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). The analysis focused on patients with severe CRSwNP, using data from a tertiary hospital and 10-year projections to model long-term outcomes. The study measured clinical effectiveness by the reduction in the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, a validated patient-reported instrument assessing symptom severity. For the economic analysis, the researchers performed a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a standard metric that combines both the quantity and quality of life into a single value. Costs for ESS were calculated using micro-costing, a detailed bottom-up accounting of all resources used, while biologic costs were based on annual drug pricing. The model's robustness was then tested with sensitivity analyses to account for variations in key assumptions.
Short-Term Outcomes: Similar Symptom Improvement, Disparate Costs
The study's short-term findings, based on a cohort of 89 patients (63 receiving endoscopic sinus surgery and 26 receiving biologics), revealed a clear divergence between clinical benefit and cost. After a two-year follow-up, both treatment strategies achieved nearly identical improvements in Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) scores, with a mean reduction of -31.8 for ESS and -31.0 for biologics. This indicates a comparable and clinically meaningful reduction in patient-reported symptom burden for both interventions in the initial phase of treatment. However, the financial implications were vastly different. The two-year cost for ESS was €5,302.78, whereas the cost for biologic therapy was more than five times higher at €27,198.23. This disparity rendered biologics a less efficient option in the short term. The resulting two-year incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), which represents the additional cost for each extra quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, was €1.2 million per QALY for biologics, a figure substantially above accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in most healthcare systems.
Long-Term Projections: QALY Gains at Substantially Higher Cost
Looking beyond the initial two years, the researchers projected outcomes over a decade to assess long-term value. The 10-year model showed that biologic therapy was associated with greater cumulative gains in patient well-being. Specifically, at 10 years, biologics yielded 2.75 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), reflecting a sustained benefit. This improvement, however, came at a significant price. The incremental cost of choosing biologics over endoscopic sinus surgery across the 10-year period was €108,917.62. This calculation produced a 10-year incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) for biologics of €39,592 per QALY. While this figure is dramatically lower than the two-year ratio, it still places the therapy near or above the upper limits of what the Spanish National Health System and similar systems are typically willing to pay for an additional year of perfect health, confirming that biologics provide higher QALY gains but at a substantially greater cost.
Pricing and Policy Implications
The study's sensitivity analyses explored how changes in pricing could affect the economic viability of biologic therapies. The findings showed that under current pricing, biologics generally remained above commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds for the Spanish National Health System, even when accounting for their long-term benefits. This suggests the primary barrier to their cost-effective use is their high acquisition cost. The model identified a critical tipping point: a substantial price reduction of up to 40% was necessary for the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) to fall within an acceptable range. This finding has direct policy implications, suggesting that without significant price negotiations, the use of biologics may need to be strategically limited. Based on this economic reality, the authors suggest that biologics may only approach cost-effectiveness under favorable pricing assumptions or when reserved for specific clinical scenarios.
Clinical Takeaways for CRSwNP Management
For the practicing physician, this study provides an economic framework for navigating treatment decisions in severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The data confirm that both endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and biologic therapies provide meaningful clinical improvement, as shown by comparable reductions in SNOT-22 scores at two years. The crucial distinction lies in their economic profiles. The analysis consistently demonstrated that ESS remained the less costly strategy and was more efficient over the short term. Even with long-term projections showing greater QALY gains for biologics, the associated costs were substantial. Therefore, within a resource-conscious system like the Spanish NHS, the findings support a sequential treatment algorithm. The authors conclude that biologic therapies are most appropriately reserved for patients who have contraindications to ESS or for those who experience persistent or recurrent disease after a well-performed surgical procedure.
References
1. Weissman B, Shen K, Flanagan OL, Chowdhury S, Sawires J. Comparing Medical and Surgical Management of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review of Dupilumab and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery.. Cureus. 2025. doi:10.7759/cureus.79742
2. Abuduruk SH, Gul BC, AlMasoudi SM, et al. Factors Contributing to the Recurrence of Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2024. doi:10.7759/cureus.67910
3. Majeethia H, Mehdi Z, Ahmed OG, et al. Endoscopic sinus surgery versus biologic therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.. Rhinology. 2026. doi:10.4193/Rhin25.345
4. Papacharalampous GX, Constantinidis J, Fotiadis G, Zhang N, Bachert C, Katotomichelakis M. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) treated with omalizumab, dupilumab, or mepolizumab: A systematic review of the current knowledge towards an attempt to compare agents’ efficacy. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology. 2023. doi:10.1002/alr.23234
5. Agache I, Song Y, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals for severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines. Allergy. 2021. doi:10.1111/all.14809
6. Kim J, Kim DH, Hwang SH. Effectiveness of Dupilumab Treatment to Treat Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyposis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Journal of rhinology : official journal of the Korean Rhinologic Society. 2023. doi:10.18787/jr.2023.00029
7. Tsetsos N, Markou K, Konstantinidis I. Effect of monoclonal antibodies on olfactory dysfunction caused by chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. International forum of allergy & rhinology. 2020. doi:10.1002/alr.22576