PP36 Early Diagnosis And Treatment Of Psoriatic Arthritis

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 79-80
Author(s):  
Nicolas Iragorri ◽  
Eldon Spackman
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Introduction:Screening for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is expected to identify patients at earlier stages of the disease. Early treatment is expected to slow disease progression and delay the need for biologic therapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening tools for PsA in Canada.Methods:A Markov model was built to estimate the associated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of screening tools for PsA in patients using topical treatment for psoriasis. The screening tools included: the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening (ToPAS) questionnaire; the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST); the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (PASE) questionnaire; and the Early ARthritis for Psoriatic patients (EARP) questionnaire. Health states were defined by disability levels, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and state transition was modeled according to annual disease progression. Screening was assumed to be effective during a 2-year sojourn period. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated based on health-state specific costs and utilities. A probabilistic analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty. All results were compared with the commonly cited cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 37, 600) per additional QALY.Results:Screening with the ToPAS questionnaire resulted in cost savings compared with no screening or the EARP questionnaire, with a total cost of CAD 30,706 (USD 23,090) and 17.29 QALYs. The PEST dominated the PASE questionnaire and was more costly and more effective than the ToPAS questionnaire, with an ICER of CAD 312,398 (USD 234,909). The results were most sensitive to test sensitivity and specificity, HAQ progression, and average HAQ score at diagnosis and the start of biologic therapy. A scenario analysis tested screening efficacy for a 1-year period before diagnosis, with the ToPAS questionnaire remaining the most cost-effective option.Conclusions:Screening was cost-effective compared with no screening at the commonly used cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 37, 600). Value of information analyses will be useful for determining the need to collect further information around test accuracy parameters.

scholarly journals THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF DEPRESSION SCREENING FOR THE GENERAL ADULT POPULATION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melike Yildirim ◽  
Bradley Gaynes ◽  
Pinar Keskinocak ◽  
Brian Pence ◽  
Julie L Swann
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Routine Screening ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Male Population ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Annual Screening ◽  
The Cost

Objective. Screening has an essential role in preventive medicine. Ideally, screening tools detect patients early enough to manage the disease and reduce symptoms. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of routine screening schedules. Methods. We used a discrete-time nonstationary Markov model to simulate the progression of depression. We adopted annual transition probabilities, which were dependent on patient histories, such as the number of previous episodes, treatment status, and time spent without treatment state based on the available data. We used Monte Carlo techniques to simulate the stochastic model for 20 years or during the lifetime of individuals. Baseline and screening scenario models with screening frequencies of annual, 2-year, and 5-year were compared based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Results. In the general population, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared to the baseline. However, male and female populations differed based on cost over quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Females had lower ICERs, and annual screening had the highest ICER for females, with 11,134 $/QALY gained. In contrast, males had around three times higher ICER, with annual screening costs of 34,065$/QALY gained. Conclusions. Considering the high lifetime prevalence and recurrence rates of depression, detection and prevention efforts can be one critical cornerstone to support required care. Our analysis combined the expected benefits and costs of screening and assessed the effectiveness of screening scenarios. We conclude that routine screening is cost-effective for all age groups of females and young, middle-aged males. Male population results are sensitive to the higher costs of screening.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi Mahmoud ◽  
Chris van Lieshout ◽  
Geert W J Frederix ◽  
Bindia Jharap ◽  
Bas Oldenburg
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Abstract Background and Aims Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12–24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. Methods We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. Results At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. Conclusions Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

scholarly journals Preventing COVID-19 Transmission on Labor and Delivery: A Decision Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 1031-1037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah M. Savitsky ◽  
Catherine M. Albright
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Labor And Delivery ◽  
Induced Labor ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Objective The health care system has been struggling to find the optimal way to protect patients and staff from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two strategies on transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers (HCW) on labor and delivery (L&D). Study Design We developed a decision analytic model comparing universal COVID-19 screening and universal PPE on L&D. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios including spontaneous labor, induced labor, and planned cesarean delivery (CD). The primary outcome was the cost to prevent COVID-19 infection in one HCW. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $25,000 to prevent a single infection in an HCW. Results In the base case using a COVID-19 prevalence of 0.36% (the rate in the United States at the time), universal screening is the preferred strategy because while universal PPE is more effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission, it is also more costly, costing $4,175,229 and $3,413,251 to prevent one infection in the setting of spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. For planned CD, universal PPE is cost saving. The model is sensitive to variations in the prevalence of COVID-19 and the cost of PPE. Universal PPE becomes cost-effective at a COVID-19 prevalence of 34.3 and 29.5% and at a PPE cost of $512.62 and $463.20 for spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. At a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, the prevalence of COVID-19 can be lower for universal PPE to become cost-effective. Conclusion Universal COVID-19 screening is generally the preferred option. However, in locations with high COVID-19 prevalence or where the local societal cost of one HCW being unavailable is the highest such as in rural areas, universal PPE may be cost-effective and preferred. This model may help to provide guidance regarding allocation of resources on L&D during these current and future pandemics. Key Points

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive methods for assessment and monitoring of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 1-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catriona Crossan ◽  
Emmanuel A Tsochatzis ◽  
Louise Longworth ◽  
Kurinchi Gurusamy ◽  
Brian Davidson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Liver Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Chronic Liver Disease ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Chronic Liver ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

BackgroundLiver biopsy is the reference standard for diagnosing the extent of fibrosis in chronic liver disease; however, it is invasive, with the potential for serious complications. Alternatives to biopsy include non-invasive liver tests (NILTs); however, the cost-effectiveness of these needs to be established.ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of NILTs in patients with chronic liver disease.Data sourcesWe searched various databases from 1998 to April 2012, recent conference proceedings and reference lists.MethodsWe included studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of NILTs using liver biopsy as the reference standard. Diagnostic studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using the bivariate random-effects model with correlation between sensitivity and specificity (whenever possible). Decision models were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the NILTs. Expected costs were estimated using a NHS perspective and health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Markov models were developed to estimate long-term costs and QALYs following testing, and antiviral treatment where indicated, for chronic hepatitis B (HBV) and chronic hepatitis C (HCV). NILTs were compared with each other, sequential testing strategies, biopsy and strategies including no testing. For alcoholic liver disease (ALD), we assessed the cost-effectiveness of NILTs in the context of potentially increasing abstinence from alcohol. Owing to a lack of data and treatments specifically for fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the analysis was limited to an incremental cost per correct diagnosis. An analysis of NILTs to identify patients with cirrhosis for increased monitoring was also conducted.ResultsGiven a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY, treating everyone with HCV without prior testing was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £9204. This was robust in most sensitivity analyses but sensitive to the extent of treatment benefit for patients with mild fibrosis. For HBV [hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative)] this strategy had an ICER of £28,137, which was cost-effective only if the upper bound of the standard UK cost-effectiveness threshold range (£30,000) is acceptable. For HBeAg-positive disease, two NILTs applied sequentially (hyaluronic acid and magnetic resonance elastography) were cost-effective at a £20,000 threshold (ICER: £19,612); however, the results were highly uncertain, with several test strategies having similar expected outcomes and costs. For patients with ALD, liver biopsy was the cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of £822.LimitationsA substantial number of tests had only one study from which diagnostic accuracy was derived; therefore, there is a high risk of bias. Most NILTs did not have validated cut-offs for diagnosis of specific fibrosis stages. The findings of the ALD model were dependent on assuptions about abstinence rates assumptions and the modelling approach for NAFLD was hindered by the lack of evidence on clinically effective treatments.ConclusionsTreating everyone without NILTs is cost-effective for patients with HCV, but only for HBeAg-negative if the higher cost-effectiveness threshold is appropriate. For HBeAg-positive, two NILTs applied sequentially were cost-effective but highly uncertain. Further evidence for treatment effectiveness is required for ALD and NAFLD.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001561.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Does Medicare Have an Implicit Cost-Effectiveness Threshold?

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. E14-E27 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Chambers ◽  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Martin J. Buxton
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Medical Interventions ◽  
Coverage Decision ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Background. Despite the huge cost of the program, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has maintained a policy that cost-effectiveness is not considered in national coverage determinations (NCDs). Objective. To assess whether an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold exists and to determine if economic evidence has been considered in previous NCDs. Methods. A literature search was conducted to identify estimates of cost-effectiveness relevant to each NCD from 1999—2007 (n = 103). The economic evaluation that best represented each coverage decision was included in a review of the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions considered in NCDs. Results. Of the 64 coverage decisions determined to have a corresponding cost-effectiveness estimate, 49 were associated with a positive coverage decision and 15 with a noncoverage decision. Of the positive decisions, 20 were associated with an economic evaluation that estimated the intervention to be dominant (costs less and was more effective than the alternative), 12 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than $50,000, 8 with an ICER greater than $50,000 but less than $100,000, and 9 with an ICER greater than $100,000. Fourteen of the sample of 64 decision memos cited or discussed cost-effectiveness information. Conclusions. CMS is covering a number of interventions that do not appear to be cost-effective, suggesting that resources could be allocated more efficiently. Although the authors identified several instances where cost-effectiveness evidence was cited in NCDs, they found no clear evidence of an implicit threshold.

scholarly journals Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 87-96
Author(s):  
H Yang ◽  
D Epstein ◽  
L Bojke ◽  
D Craig ◽  
K Light ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Disease Response ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the use of golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a single phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT: GO-REVEAL) that compared golimumab with placebo for treating patients with active and progressive PsA who were symptomatic despite the use of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The 14-week data showed that, compared with placebo, golimumab 50 mg significantly improved joint disease response as measured by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 [relative risk (RR) 5.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 10.56] and Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) (RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.49 to 4.87), and skin disease response as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 (RR 15.95, 95% CI 4.62 to 59.11). The 24-week absolute data showed that these treatment benefits were maintained. There was a significant improvement in patients’ functional status as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) change from baseline at 24 weeks (–0.33, p < 0.001). The open-label extension data showed that these beneficial effects were also maintained at 52 and 104 weeks. However, PASI 50 and PASI 90 at 14 weeks, and all of the PASI outcomes at 24 weeks, were not performed on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, analyses of the 24-week data were less robust, failing to adjust for treatment contamination due to patient crossover at week 16. The manufacturer conducted a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) analysis. The ERG considered the assumption of exchangeability between the trials for the purpose of the MTC analysis to be acceptable, and the statistical approach in the MTC analysis to be reliable. Regarding the safety evaluation of golimumab, the manufacturer failed to provide longer-term data or to consider adverse event data of golimumab from controlled studies in other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Although the adverse effect profile of golimumab appears similar to other anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents, the longer-term safety profile of golimumab remains uncertain. The manufacturer’s submission presented a decision model to compare etanercept, infliximab, golimumab and adalimumab versus palliative care for patients with PsA. In the base-case model, 73% of the cohort of patients were assumed to have significant psoriasis (> 3% of body surface area). Estimates of the effectiveness of anti-TNF agents in terms of PsARC, HAQ change and PASI change were obtained from an MTC analysis of RCT data. The manufacturer failed to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) correctly by comparing golimumab with palliative care instead of the most cost-effective alternative (etanercept). Despite the manufacturer’s claim that golimumab is a cost-effective treatment option, the manufacturer’s own model showed that golimumab is not cost-effective compared with other biologics when the ICERs are correctly calculated. None of the sensitivity analyses carried out by the manufacturer or the ERG regarding uncertainty in the estimates of clinical effectiveness, the acquisition and administration cost of drugs, the cost of treating psoriasis and the utility functions estimated to generate health outcomes changed this conclusion. However, a key area in determining the cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF agents is whether they should be treated as a class. If all anti-TNF agents are considered equally effective then etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab have very nearly equal costs and equal quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and all have an ICER of about £15,000 per QALY versus palliative care, whereas infliximab with a higher acquisition cost is dominated by the other biologics.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing an integrated neonatal care kit to reduce neonatal infection in rural Pakistan

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e047793
Author(s):  
Fiona Muttalib ◽  
Karen Chung ◽  
Lisa Grace Pell ◽  
Shabina Ariff ◽  
Sajid Soofi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Neonatal Infection ◽  
Neonatal Care ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Local Standard ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of distribution of the integrated neonatal care kit (iNCK) by community health workers from the healthcare payer perspective in Rahimyar Khan, Pakistan.SettingRahimyar Khan, Pakistan.ParticipantsN/A.InterventionCost-utility analysis using a Markov model based on cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT: NCT 02130856) data and a literature review. We compared distribution of the iNCK to pregnant mothers to local standard of care and followed infants over a lifetime horizon.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was incremental net monetary benefit (INMB, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$15.50), discounted at 3%. Secondary outcomes were life years, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and costs.ResultsAt a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$15.50, distribution of the iNCK resulted in lower expected DALYs (28.7 vs 29.6 years) at lower expected cost (US$52.50 vs 55.20), translating to an INMB of US$10.22 per iNCK distributed. These results were sensitive to the baseline risk of infection, cost of the iNCK and the estimated effect of the iNCK on the relative risk of infection. At relative risks of infection below 0.79 and iNCK costs below US$25.90, the iNCK remained cost-effective compared with current local standard of care.ConclusionThe distribution of the iNCK dominated the current local standard of care (ie, the iNCK is less costly and more effective than current care standards). Most of the cost-effectiveness of the iNCK was attributable to a reduction in neonatal infection.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of BCG Vaccination against Tuberculosis in Indonesia: A Model-Based Study

Vaccines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 707
Author(s):  
Afifah Machlaurin ◽  
Franklin Christiaan Karel Dolk ◽  
Didik Setiawan ◽  
Tjipke Sytse van der Werf ◽  
Maarten J. Postma
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Control Programme ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Bcg Vaccination ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG), the only available vaccine for tuberculosis (TB), has been applied for decades. The Indonesian government recently introduced a national TB disease control programme that includes several action plans, notably enhanced vaccination coverage, which can be strengthened through underpinning its favourable cost-effectiveness. We designed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of Indonesia’s current BCG vaccination programme. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated from the perspectives of both society and healthcare. The robustness of the analysis was confirmed through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Using epidemiological data compiled for Indonesia, BCG vaccination at a price US$14 was estimated to be a cost-effective strategy in controlling TB disease. From societal and healthcare perspectives, ICERs were US$104 and US$112 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. The results were robust for variations of most variables in the univariate analysis. Notably, the vaccine’s effectiveness regarding disease protection, vaccination costs, and case detection rates were key drivers for cost-effectiveness. The PSA results indicated that vaccination was cost-effective even at US$175 threshold in 95% of cases, approximating the monthly GDP per capita. Our findings suggest that this strategy was highly cost-effective and merits prioritization and extension within the national TB programme. Our results may be relevant for other high endemic low- and middle-income countries.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document