Absorbable Nasal Implant for Treatment of Nasal Valve Collapse - CAM 701163

Description
Nasal valve collapse is a readily identifiable cause of nasal obstruction. Specifically, the internal nasal valve represents the narrowest portion of the nasal airway, with the upper lateral nasal cartilages present as supporting structures. The external nasal valve is an area of potential dynamic collapse that is supported by the lower lateral cartilages. Damaged or weakened cartilage will further decrease airway capacity and increase airflow resistance and may be associated with symptoms of obstruction. Patients with nasal valve collapse may be treated with nonsurgical interventions in an attempt to increase the airway capacity but severe symptoms and anatomic distortion are treated with surgical cartilage graft procedures. The placement of an absorbable implant to support the lateral nasal cartilages has been proposed as an alternative to more invasive grafting procedures in patients with severe nasal obstruction. The concept is that the implant may provide support to the lateral nasal wall prior to resorption and then stiffen the wall with scarring as it is resorbed.

For individuals with symptomatic nasal obstruction due to internal nasal valve collapse who receive an absorbable lateral nasal valve implant, the evidence includes 2 nonrandomized prospective, single-cohort, industry-sponsored studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, treatment-related morbidity, functional outcomes, and quality of life. Both studies are limited by the heterogeneity of the populations evaluated. Specifically, the types and rates of prior nasal procedures were not well described, nor was the clinical rationale for alternative or adjunctive procedural interventions. Overall, improvements in the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score have been demonstrated in the study reports. However, a clinically significant difference may not be consistently apparent in small study populations. Some patients meeting the positive responder criteria still reported severe symptoms, and many patients reported some loss of improvement at 1 year. Data elements are missing or difficult to determine for important outcomes. As reported, adverse events appeared to be mild in severity and self-limiting, but still appeared common. Device retrievals are incompletely characterized. They occurred in 10% of patients in the primary cohort study, and it is not known, for example, whether a device retrieval occurred in a patient who had only a unilateral nasal implant. The need for device retrievals appears to occur early in the course of follow-up (1 month); suggesting technical experience limitations on the part of the operator or inappropriate patient selection. The duration of outcomes reporting is less than the duration of absorption of the device (18 months) and the purported completion of tissue remodeling phase (24 months). Randomized controlled trials with a sham control are feasible and should be performed. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

Policy
The insertion of an absorbable lateral nasal implant for the treatment of symptomatic nasal valve collapse is considered investigational and/or unproven and therefore NOT  MEDICALLY NECESSARY.

Policy Guidelines
Coding
Previously, there was no specific code for absorbable nasal implants. However, effective April 1, 2018, there is HCPCS C9749, which describes this device. Some facilities may still use the unlisted code C1889 (Implantable/insertable device for device intensive procedure, not otherwise classified).

Physician work for the nasal implant placement would be billed with the unlisted CPT code 30999 (Unlisted procedure, nose). Some providers may use CPT 30465 (Repair of nasal vestibular stenosis [e.g., spreader grafting, lateral nasal wall reconstruction]) for this service; however, the unlisted code is appropriate.

Benefit Application
BlueCard/National Account Issues
State or federal mandates (e.g., Federal Employee Program) may dictate that certain U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved devices, drugs, or biologics may not be considered investigational, and thus these devices may be assessed only by their medical necessity.

Background
Nasal Obstruction
Nasal obstruction is defined clinically as a patient symptom that presents as a sensation of reduced or insufficient airflow through the nose. Commonly, patients will feel that they have nasal congestion or stuffiness. In adults, clinicians focus the evaluation of important features of the history provided by the patient such as whether symptoms are unilateral or bilateral. Unilateral symptoms are more suggestive of structural causes of nasal obstruction. A history of trauma or previous nasal surgery, especially septoplasty or rhinoplasty, is also important. Diurnal or seasonal variation in symptoms is associated with allergic conditions.

Etiology
Nasal obstruction associated with the external nasal valve is commonly associated with post-rhinoplasty or traumatic sequelae and may require functional rhinoplasty procedures. A common cause of internal nasal valve collapse is a eptal deviation. Prior nasal surgery, nasal trauma, and congenital anomaly are additional causes.

Pathophysiology
The internal nasal valve, bordered by the collapsible soft tissue between the upper and lower lateral cartilages, the anterior end of the inferior turbinate, and the nasal septum, forms the narrowest part of the nasal airway. During inspiration, the lateral wall cartilage is dynamic and draws inward toward the septum and the internal nasal valve narrows providing protection to the upper airways. The angle at the junction between the septum and upper lateral cartilage is normally 10° to 15° in white populations. Given that the internal nasal valve accounts for at least half of the nasal airway resistance; even minor further narrowing of this area can lead to symptomatic obstruction for a patient. Damaged or weakened lateral nasal cartilage will further decrease airway capacity of the internal nasal valve area, increasing airflow resistance and symptoms of congestion.1

Physical Examination
A thorough physical examination of the nose, nasal cavity and the nasopharynx is generally sufficient to identify the most likely etiology for the nasal obstruction. Both the external and internal nasal valve areas should be examined. The external nasal valve is at the level of the internal nostril. It is formed by the caudal portion of the lower lateral cartilage, surrounding soft tissue and the membranous septum.

The Cottle maneuver is an examination in which the cheek on the symptomatic side is gently pulled laterally with one to two fingers. If the patient is less symptomatic with inspiration during the maneuver, the assumption is that the nasal valve has been widened from a collapsed state or dynamic nasal valve collapse. An individual can perform the maneuver on oneself and it is subjective. A clinician performs the modified Cottle maneuver. A cotton swab or curette is inserted into the nasal cavity to support the nasal cartilage and the patient reports whether there is an improvement in the symptoms with inspiration. In both instances, a change in the external contour of the lateral nose may be apparent to both the patient and the examiner.

Treatment
Treatment of symptomatic nasal valve collapse includes the use of nonsurgical interventions such as the adhesive strips applied externally across the nose (applying the principle of the Cottle maneuver) or use of nasal dilators, cones, or other devices that support the lateral nasal wall internally (applying the principle of the modified Cottle maneuver).

Severe cases of obstruction result from nasal valve deformities are treated with surgical grafting to widen and/or strengthen the valve. Common materials include cartilaginous autografts and allografts, as well as permanent synthetic grafts. Cartilage grafts are most commonly harvested from the patient’s nasal septum or ear.

Nasal Implants
The placement of an absorbable implant to support the lateral nasal cartilages has been proposed as an alternative to more invasive grafting procedures in patients with severe nasal obstruction.

Regulatory Status
In May 2016, LATERA® (Spirox) was cleared for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration through the 510(k) process (Food and Drug Administration product code: NHB).2, LATERA® is the only commercially available absorbable nasal implant for the treatment of nasal valve collapse. It is a class II device and regulatory details are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Absorbable Nasal Implant Cleared by the Food and Drug Administration

Product

Manufacturer

Date Cleared

510(k) No.

Indication

LATERA® absorbable nasal implant

Spirox (part of Stryker)

2016

K161191

Supporting nasal upper and lower lateral cartilage

Rationale
This evidence review was created in October 2018 and updated periodically with a search of the PubMed database. The most recent literature update was performed through September 2, 2020.

Evidence reviews assess the clinical evidence to determine whether the use of technology improves the net health outcome. Broadly defined, health outcomes are the length of life, quality of life (QOL), and ability to function -- including benefits and harms. Every clinical condition has specific outcomes that are important to patients and managing the course of that condition. Validated outcome measures are necessary to ascertain whether a condition improves or worsens; and whether the magnitude of that change is clinically significant. The net health outcome is a balance of benefits and harms.

To assess whether the evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about the net health outcome of technology, two domains are examined: the relevance, and quality and credibility. To be relevant, studies must represent 1 or more intended clinical uses of the technology in the intended population and compare an effective and appropriate alternative at a comparable intensity. For some conditions, the alternative will be supportive care or surveillance. The quality and credibility of the evidence depend on study design and conduct, minimizing bias and confounding that can generate incorrect findings. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is preferred to assess efficacy; however, in some circumstances, nonrandomized studies may be adequate. RCTs are rarely large enough or long enough to capture less common adverse events and long-term effects. Other types of studies can be used for these purposes and to assess generalizability to broader clinical populations and settings of clinical practice.

Absorbable Lateral Nasal Valve Implant
Clinical Context and Therapy Purpose
The purpose of insertion of an absorbable nasal valve implant in patients who have symptomatic nasal valve obstruction due to nasal valve collapse (NVC) is to provide a treatment option that is an alternative to or an improvement on existing therapies.

The question addressed in this evidence review is: Does the use of an absorbable nasal valve implant in patients who have symptomatic nasal valve obstruction due to NVC improve the net health outcome?

The following PICO was used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients
The relevant population of interest are adults who have severe symptomatic nasal obstruction symptoms due to the internal (also known as zone 1) NVC. NVC is 1 of the recognized structural causes of obstructed breathing and congestion, and the diagnosis is primarily clinical. NVC may be unilateral or bilateral and is typically constant with each inspiration. The condition may occur in association with prior trauma or rhinonasal surgery. The evaluation consists of clinical history to elicit alternative causes or co-occurring conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea or medication use. In addition to examination of the head and neck, the Cottle maneuver or modified Cottle maneuver (previously described) is used to rule in NVC. Anterior rhinoscopy and nasal endoscopy are used and rule out structural abnormalities such as septal deviation or mucosal conditions such as enlarged turbinates. Radiographic studies are not generally indicated.3

Interventions
The therapy being considered is a unilateral or bilateral insertion of an absorbable nasal implant into the lateral nasal wall. The product is predominantly cylindrical in shape with a diameter of 1 mm and an overall length of 24 mm with a forked distal end for anchoring into the maxillary periosteum. It is composed of poly (l-lactide-co-d-l-lactide) 70:30 copolymer, which is absorbed in the body over approximately 18 months. It is packaged with a 16-gauge insertion device. The available product information describes the integrity of the implant to be maintained for 12 months after implantation while a fibrous capsule forms around the device. A remodeling phase where collagen replaces the implant within the capsule persists through 24 months and is the purported mechanism of support for the lateral nasal wall support.4

Comparators
The following therapies and practices are currently being used to treat NVC: nonsurgical treatments include the use of externally applied adhesive strips or intranasal insertion of nasal cones. The basic mechanism of action of these treatments is to widen the nasal valve and permit increased airflow. Surgical grafting using either autologous cartilage (typically from the nasal septum, ear, or homologous irradiated rib cartilage) or a permanent synthetic implant may be performed to provide structural support to the lateral wall support defect.

Outcomes
The general outcomes of interest are a change in symptoms and disease status, treatment-related morbidity, functional status, and change in the QOL. The Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score is an accepted symptom questionnaire for research purposes. The score can also be stratified to indicate the degree of severity of the nasal obstruction symptoms. The insertion of the absorbable implant is performed under local anesthesia and the adverse event profile includes mild pain, irritation, bruising and inflammation, awareness of the presence of the implant, infection, and the need for device retrieval prior to complete absorption.

Stewart et al. (2004) proposed the NOSE as a validated sinonasal-specific health status instrument that is used to assess the impact of nasal obstruction on the QOL of affected persons.5 It is a 5-item questionnaire on breathing problems: nasal congestion or stuffiness, nasal blockage or obstruction, trouble breathing through the nose, trouble sleeping, and inability to get enough air through the nose during exercise or exertion. The responses are made on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not a problem) to 4 (severe problem). The range of raw scores is 0 to 20. The score is then scaled to a potential total score of 0 to 100 by multiplying the raw score by 5. A score of 100 means the worst possible problem with nasal obstruction.

The NOSE scale-based nasal obstruction severity classification system is proposed as a means to classify patients for clinical management as well as to better define study populations and describe treatment or intervention responses (see Table 2).6

Table 2. NOSE Severity Classification  

Severity Class NOSE Score Range
Mild 5-25
Moderate 30-50
Severe 55-75
Extreme 80-100

NOSE: Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation. 

The duration of follow-up to assess early procedural outcomes is 1 month and at least 24 months would be required to evaluate the durability of symptom improvement as well as to confirm the association with the purported device mechanism of action.

Study Selection Criteria
To assess efficacy outcomes, we sought comparative controlled prospective trials, with a preference for RCTs.

  • In the absence of such trials, we sought comparative observational studies, with a preference for prospective studies.

  • To assess long-term outcomes and adverse effects, also sought single-arm studies that capture longer periods of follow-up and/or larger populations.

  • Within each category of study design, prefer larger sample size studies and longer duration studies.

  • We excluded studies with duplicative or overlapping populations.

Review of Evidence
Randomized Controlled Trials
One sham-controlled randomized trial with a 3 month follow-up has been identified (see Table 3). Stolovitzky et al. (2019) randomized 137 patients with severe to extreme NOSE scores to an office-based nasal implant or sham control procedure.7 Follow-up at 3 months showed a significant improvement in responder rate, change in NOSE score, and visual analog scale compared to the sham group, although over half of the control group also were considered responders (see Table 4). Six patients (8.6% of 70), had the implant removed by 3 months and analysis was not intent-to-treat or last observation carried forward (see Tables 5 and 6). Other adverse events included pain (n=4), foreign body sensation (n=3), localized swelling (n=2), inflammation (n=1), skin puncture (n=1), and vasovagal response (n=2). Follow-up of the implant group will continue through 24 months.

Table 3. Summary of Key RCT Characteristics  

Study; Trial Countries Sites Dates Participants Interventions
          Active Comparator
Stolovitzky et al (2019)7 US 10 2017-2018 137 patients with severe to extreme NOSE scores after 4 weeks of medical management Nasal implant (n=70) Sham control with a cannula inserted into the nasal lateral wall (n=67)

NOSE: Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Table 4. Summary of Key RCT Results  

Study NOSE Responder Rate at 3 mo %1 Change in NOSE Score at 3 mo (SD) Change in VAS at 3 mo (SD) Implant Removal
Stolovitzky et al (2019)7 N=127 N=127    
Nasal Implant 82.5 −42.4 (23.4) –39.0 (29.7) 6/70 (8.6%)
Sham Implant 54.7 −22.7 (27.9) –13.3 (30.0)  
p-Value 0.001 <0.001 <0.001  

NOSE: Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SD: standard deviation; VAS: visual analog scale.
1 20% decrease or decrease in 1 category on the NOSE score

Table 5. Study Relevance Limitations  

Study Populationa Interventionb Comparatorc Outcomesd Follow-Upe
Stolovitzky et al (2019)7       6. Clinically significant difference not supported. A positive responder could still have severe symptoms. 1. 3 mo follow-up reported to date. Duration of outcomes reporting less than duration of absorption of device/completion of remodeling phase

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.
a Population key: 1. Intended use population unclear; 2. Clinical context is unclear; 3. Study population is unclear; 4. Study population not representative of intended use.
b Intervention key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Version used unclear; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as comparator; 4.Not the intervention of interest.
c Comparator key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Not standard or optimal; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as intervention; 4. Not delivered effectively.
d Outcomes key: 1. Key health outcomes not addressed; 2. Physiologic measures, not validated surrogates; 3. No CONSORT reporting of harms; 4. Not establish and validated measurements; 5. Clinical significant difference not prespecified; 6. Clinical significant difference not supported.
e Follow-Up key: 1. Not sufficient duration for benefit; 2. Not sufficient duration for harms.

Table 6. Study Design and Conduct Limitations 

Study Allocationa Blindingb Selective Reportingc Data Completenessd Powere Statisticalf
Stolovitzky et al (2019)7   3. Nasal examination was performed by the treating physician (patients were blinded) 2. Not last-observation carried forward. Patients who had the implant removed were excluded from analysis. 6. Not intent-to-treat. 6 patients who had implant removal were not analyzed.    

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.
a Allocation key: 1. Participants not randomly allocated; 2. Allocation not concealed; 3. Allocation concealment unclear; 4. Inadequate control for selection bias.
b Blinding key: 1. Not blinded to treatment assignment; 2. Not blinded outcome assessment; 3. Outcome assessed by treating physician.
c Selective Reporting key: 1. Not registered; 2. Evidence of selective reporting; 3. Evidence of selective publication.
d Data Completeness key: 1. High loss to follow-up or missing data; 2. Inadequate handling of missing data; 3. High number of crossovers; 4. Inadequate handling of crossovers; 5. Inappropriate exclusions; 6. Not intent to treat analysis (per protocol for noninferiority trials).
e Power key: 1. Power calculations not reported; 2. Power not calculated for primary outcome; 3. Power not based on clinically important differences.
f Statistical key: 1. Analysis is not appropriate for outcome type: (a) continuous; (b) binary; (c) time to event; 2. Analysis is not appropriate for multiple observations per patient; 3. Confidence intervals and/or p values not reported; 4. Comparative treatment effects not calculated.

Prospective Cohort Studies
The characteristics and results of prospective cohort studies are summarized in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

Sidle et al. (2019) reported 12-month outcomes for 160 patients with severe-to-extreme NOSE scores who were enrolled at 14 U.S. clinics between September 2016 and July 2017.8 Insertion of a Latera implant alone was reported for 105 patients and insertion of the implant plus adjunctive procedure was reported for 61 patients. The group had previously reported on the first 101 patients from 2 concurrent studies9 the study reported by Sidle et al. 2019 (NCT02964312), and a second cohort treated in the operating room (see Table 13, T02964313).Because there is an overlap in patient populations, we will review the more complete data set. San Nicoló et al. (2017, 2018) reported 24-month outcomes for 30 patients who were treated at 3 clinical sites in Germany.10,11 In the larger study by Sidle et al. (2019), 5.3% of patients had the implant removed. In the study by San Nicoló et al. (2017, 2018), 13.3% of patients had the implant removed. The improvement in symptoms was consistent for the studies, with a mean change of over 40 points from baseline on the NOSE score. Results were reported for patients who retained the implant, and neither study used the last observation carried forward. The 24-month outcomes from the smaller study by San Nicoló et al. (2017, 2018) are the most relevant, as resorption and remodeling are expected to occur within that time frame. At enrollment, 30 patients were classified as severe to the extreme on the NOSE scale. At the 24-month follow-up, 4 patients had an additional procedure, 8 were classified as severe to extreme, and 17 had improved to mild to moderate. Follow-up beyond 18 months in a larger number of patients is needed.

Table 7. Summary of Key Nonrandomized Study Characteristics  

Study Study Type Country Dates Participantsa Treatment, n Follow-Up
Sidle et al (2019)8 Prospective single-arm cohort U.S. (14 clinical sites) Sep 2016- Jul 2017 160 · Insertion of implantb alone:105
· Insertion of implantb plus adjunctive procedure: 61
1, 3, 6, 12 mo
San Nicoló et al (2017, 2018)10,11 Prospective single-arm cohort Germany (3 clinical sites) NR 30 Insertion of 56 lateral wall implantb:
· Bilateral: 26
· Unilateral: 4
1 wk and 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 mo

NOSE: Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation; NR: not reported.
a Baseline inclusion criteria: NOSE score ≥55. Baseline exclusion criteria: septoplasty or turbinate reduction within 6 mo, rhinoplasty within 12 mo, recurrent nasal infection, intranasal steroids, permanent nasal implants or dilators, precancerous or cancerous lesions, radiation or chemotherapy within 24 mo.
b Absorbable polylactide implant marketed in the U. S. as Latera.

Table 8. Summary of Key Nonrandomized Study NOSE Score Results 

Study Baseline 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 12 Months 24 Months
Sidle et al (2019)8            
N or n 166 164 156 152 139  
Mean NOSE score (SD) 77.4 (13.4) 36.2 (22.7) 33.0 (23.4) 32.1 (24.6) 30.3 (24.3)  
pa   <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  
Mean change from baseline (SD)   −41.3 (24.1) -44.3 (25.1) -45.1 (25.8) -46.3 (25.5)  
Responder rate % (95% CI)b   89.6 (83.9 to 93.8) 91.7 (86.2 to 95.5) 89.5 (83.5 to 93.9) 89.2 (82.8 to 93.8)  
pa   <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  
Responder rateb for implant alone group   90.3 (82.9 to 95.2) 92.0 (84.8 to 96.5) 91.6 (84.1 to 96.3) 87.8 (79.2 to 93.7)  
San Nicoló et al (2017, 2018)10,11            
N or n 30   29 30 29 25
Mean score (SD) 76.7 (14.8) NR 28.4 33.3 35.2 32.0 (29.3)
Mean change from baseline (SD)     -48.4 (26.9) -43.3 (29.7) -40.9 (29.2) -44.0 (31.1)
p     <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  
N or n   NR 29 30 29  
Response rate, n (%)b     25 (86.2) 24 (80) 22 (75.9)  

CI: confidence interval; NOSE: Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation; NR: not reported; SD: standard deviation.
a Paired tests were used to compare the mean baseline value with each of the follow-up time points to determine whether there was evidence of significant reductions in NOSE scores.
b Response rate was defined as an improvement of at least 1 NOSE score category or a 20% reduction in NOSE score.

Table 9. Summary of Key Nonrandomized Study Safety and Adverse Event Results 

Study 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 12 Months 24 Months
Sidle et al (2019)8          
Device relateda       41 events in 31 patients  
Device removals       17 out of 319 implants (5.3%)  
San Nicoló et al (2017, 2018)10,11          
N or n 30 29 30 29 25b
Device tolerability, % (n)          
None/mild pain 30 (100) 29 (100) 29 (96.7) 29 (100) 24 (96.0)
Not assessed     1 (3.3)    
No cosmetic changesc 26 (86.7) 27 (93.1) 27 (90.0) 26 (89.7) 17 (89.5)
Device-related adverse eventsd 5 0 0 0 0

a foreign body sensation (6), sinus infection (1), mucous production (2), loss of smell/taste (1), skin irritation (1), hematoma (1), infection (4), pain (3), bumps (5), and implant retrievals (17)
b 4 patients had an additional procedure and 1 was lost to follow-up.
c Photographic review.
d 3 device retrievals, 1 hematoma, and 1 inflammation.

Limitations in relevance and design and conduct are shown in Tables 10 and 11. 

Table 10. Study Relevance Limitations  

Study Populationa Interventionb Comparatorc Outcomesd Duration of
Follow-Upe
Sidle et al (2019)8 1.Patient population varied in important clinical characteristics and types and rates of prior rhinologic surgery 2.Clinical context for patient selection for absorbable implant vs implant plus adjunctive surgery not described 5. Implant plus adjunctive surgery group a subpopulation of potential intended use     6. Clinically significant difference not supported. A positive responder could still have severe symptoms. 1.Duration of outcomes reporting less than duration of absorption of device and purported completion of remodeling phase
San Nicoló et al (2017, 2018)10,11 2. Clinical context for patient selection for absorbable implant vs alternative surgery not described 3.Study population is heterogenous: 68% had prior rhinonasal surgery     6. Clinically significant difference not supported. A positive responder could still have severe symptoms.  

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.
a Population key: 1. Intended use population unclear; 2. Clinical context is unclear; 3. Study population is unclear; 4. Study population not representative of intended use. 5. Study population is subpopulation of intended use.
b Intervention key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Version used unclear; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as comparator.
c Comparator key: 1.Not clearly defined; 2.Not standard or optimal; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as intervention; 4. Not delivered effectively.
d Outcomes key: 1.Key health outcomes not addressed; 2. Physiologic measures, not validated surrogates; 3.Not CONSORT reporting of harms; 4.Not established and validated measurements; 5. Clinically significant difference not prespecified; 6. Clinically significant differences not supported.
e Follow-Up key: 1. Not sufficient duration for benefits; 2. Not sufficient duration for harms.

Table 11. Study Design and Conduct Limitations 

Study Allocationa Blindingb Selective Reportingc Data Completenessd Powere Statisticalf
Sidle et al (2019)8   1. No sham control and not blinded to treatment assignment   1.Data incomplete for populations assessed for various outcomes 2.Missing data for patients who had device retrievals    
San Nicoló et al (2017, 2018)10,11   1. No sham control and not blinded to treatment assignment   2. Missing data for patients who had device retrievals    

The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.
a Allocation key: 1. Participants not randomly allocated; 2. Allocation not concealed; 3. Allocation concealment unclear; 4. Inadequate control for selection bias.
bBlinding key: 1. Not blinded to treatment assignment; 2. Not blinded outcome assessment; 3. Outcome assessed by treating physician.
c Selective Reporting key: 1. Not registered; 2. Evidence of selective reporting; 3. Evidence of selective publication.
d Data Completeness key: 1. High loss to follow-up or missing data; 2. Inadequate handling of missing data; 3. High number of crossovers; 4. Inadequate handling of crossovers; 5. Inappropriate exclusions; 6. Not intent to treat analysis (per protocol for noninferiority trials).
e Power key: 1. Power calculations not reported; 2. Power not calculated for primary outcome; 3. Power not based on clinically important difference.
f Statistical key: 1. Analysis is not appropriate for outcome type: (a) continuous; (b) binary; (c) time to event; 2. Analysis is not appropriate for multiple observations per patient; 3. Confidence intervals and/or p values not reported; 4. Comparative treatment effects not calculated.

Summary of Evidence
For individuals with symptomatic nasal obstruction due to internal nasal valve collapse who receive an absorbable lateral nasal valve implant, the evidence includes 1 RCT and 2 nonrandomized prospective, single-cohort studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, treatment-related morbidity, functional outcomes, and quality of life. Overall, improvements in the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score have been demonstrated in the study reports. Follow-up at 3 months in the RCT showed a statistically significant improvement in response with the implant compared to the sham group, although over half of the control group were also considered responders. The duration of outcomes reporting is less than the duration of absorption of the device (18 months) and the purported completion of the tissue remodeling phase (24 months). It is noted that a follow-up to 24-months in this trial is ongoing. Longer follow-up in the prospective cohort studies is available, with 24-month follow-up reported in the smaller (n=30) of the cohort studies. However, a clinically significant difference may not be consistently apparent in small study populations. Some patients meeting the positive responder criteria still reported severe symptoms, and 13% of patients required an additional procedure. As reported, adverse events appeared to be mild in severity and self-limiting, but still appeared common. At the 12-month follow-up in the larger (n=160) cohort, device retrievals occurred in 5% of patients. The need for device retrievals appears to occur early in the course of follow-up (1 month); suggesting technical experience limitations on the part of the operator or inappropriate patient selection. Follow-up to 24-months in this cohort is needed. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surgery
In 2010, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surgery released a clinical consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise.2 Table 12 summarizes the key consensus statements relevant to this review. The statement also indicated that nasal endoscopy and nasal photography were both deemed useful but not routinely required.

Table 12. Consensus Agreement: Diagnosis and Treatment of NVC 

Item Statement Level of Consensus
Definition NVC is a distinct clinical entity separate from other anatomic reasons for nasal obstruction Agreement/strong agreement
History and physical Main symptom of NVC is decreased airflow as reported by the patient Strong agreement
  Anterior rhinoscopy can be adequate for an intranasal evaluation of the nasal valve, weak or malformed nasal cartilages Agreement/strong agreement
  Inspiratory collapse of the lateral nasal wall or alar rim is consistent with NVC Agreement/strong agreement
  Increased nasal obstruction associated with deep inspiration is consistent with NVC Agreement/strong agreement
Adjunctive tests Criterion standard test to diagnose NVC exists Strong disagreement
Outcome measures Various patient-reported outcomes (eg, visual analog scales, satisfaction measures, quality of life scales) are valid indicators of successful intervention General agreement
Management Nasal strips, stents, or cones can be used to treat some patients Strong agreement
  A surgical procedure that is intended to support the lateral nasal wall/alar rim is a distinct entity from procedures that correct a deviated nasal septum or hypertrophied turbinate Strong agreement

NVC: nasal valve compromise.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations
Not applicable.

Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials
Unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 13. 

Table 13. Summary of Key Trials 

NCT No. Trial Name Planned Enrollment Completion Date
Ongoing      
NCT03400787a Latera® Absorbable Nasal Implant vs Sham Control for Lateral Nasal Valve Collapse 150 Feb 2021
NCT03793218 A Comparison of Alar Batten Graft to the Latera Nasal Implant for the Treatment of Nasal Valve Collapse 30 Nov 2021
Unpublished      
NCT02952313 Spirox Latera™ Implant Support of Lateral Nasal Wall Cartilage (LATERAL-OR) Study 113 Aug 2019

NCT: national clinical trial.

 Denotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial.

References   

  1. Howard BK, Rohrich RJ. Understanding the nasal airway: principles and practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. Mar 2002; 109(3): 1128-46; quiz 1145-6. PMID 11884847
  2. Rhee JS, Weaver EM, Park SS, et al. Clinical consensus statement: Diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Jul 2010; 143(1): 48-59. PMID 20620619
  3. Fraser L, Kelly G. An evidence-based approach to the management of the adult with nasal obstruction. Clin Otolaryngol. Apr 2009; 34(2): 151-5. PMID 19413614
  4. Stryker. Latera. http://www.spiroxmed.com/latera. Accessed September 2, 2020.
  5. Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, et al. Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Feb 2004; 130(2): 157-63. PMID 14990910
  6. Lipan MJ, Most SP. Development of a severity classification system for subjective nasal obstruction. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. Sep-Oct 2013; 15(5): 358-61. PMID 23846399
  7. Stolovitzky P, Senior B, Ow RA, et al. Assessment of bioabsorbable implant treatment for nasal valve collapse compared to a sham group: a randomized control trial. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. Aug 2019; 9(8): 850-856. PMID 31226238
  8. Sidle DM, Stolovitzky P, Ow RA, et al. Twelve-month outcomes of a bioabsorbable implant for in-office treatment of dynamic nasal valve collapse. Laryngoscope. May 2020; 130(5): 1132-1137. PMID 31254279
  9. Stolovitzky P, Sidle DM, Ow RA, et al. A prospective study for treatment of nasal valve collapse due to lateral wall insufficiency: Outcomes using a bioabsorbable implant. Laryngoscope. Nov 2018; 128(11): 2483-2489. PMID 29756407
  10. San Nicolo M, Stelter K, Sadick H, et al. Absorbable Implant to Treat Nasal Valve Collapse. Facial Plast Surg. Apr 2017; 33(2): 233-240. PMID 28388804
  11. San Nicolo M, Stelter K, Sadick H, et al. A 2-Year Follow-up Study of an Absorbable Implant to Treat Nasal Valve Collapse. Facial Plast Surg. Oct 2018; 34(5): 545-550. PMID 30227454

Coding

Codes

Number

Description

CPT

 

No specific CPT code. See Policy Guidelines section

HCPCS

C9749

Repair of nasal vestibular lateral wall stenosis with implant(s)

 

 

Investigational for applicable diagnoses

ICD-10-CM

J34.89

Other specified disorders of nose and nasal sinuses

 

J34.9

Unspecified disorder of nose and nasal sinuses

ICD-10-PCS

 

 

Type of service

Surgery

 

Place of service

Outpatient

 

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive.

This medical policy was developed through consideration of peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, U.S. FDA approval status, nationally accepted standards of medical practice and accepted standards of medical practice in this community, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association technology assessment program (TEC) and other non-affiliated technology evaluation centers, reference to federal regulations, other plan medical policies, and accredited national guidelines.

"Current Procedural Terminology © American Medical Association.  All Rights Reserved" 

History From 2019 Forward     

10/01/2021  Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating rationale and references. 
07/06/2021  Removing CPT codes that was added to policy in error. No change to policy intent. 
12/10/2020  Updating CPT codes. No other changes. 
10/01/2020  Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating background, regulatory status, rationale and references                                                                                                                                                     . 
10/01/2019 NEW POLICY

 

 

Complementary Content
${loading}