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 septal 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

Related Policies

• None

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 one or more intended clinical use 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 policy 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 PICOs were used to select literature to inform this policy.

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 one 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 aunilateral 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.

One sham-controlled randomized trial with a three-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 three 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). The 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 one category on the NOSE score

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

^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.

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. Six patients who had implant removal were not analyzed.

^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.

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.^8,9, Insertion of a Latera implant alone was reported for 105 patients and insertion of the implant plus adjunctive procedure was reported for 61 patients. 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
Stolovitzky et al (2018); Sidle et al (2019)8,9,	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.

Study	Baseline	1 Month	3 Months	6 Months	12 Months	24 Months
Stolovitzky et al (2018); Sidle et al (2019)8,9,
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 ratea 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)
pd			<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)

^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.

Study	1 Month	3 Months	6 Months	12 Months	24 Months
Stolovitzky et al (2018); Sidle et al (2019)8,9,
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)

^b4 patients had an additional procedure and 1 was lost to follow-up.

^c Photographic review.

^d Three device retrievals, 1 hematoma, and 1 inflammation.

Table 10. Relevance Limitations

Study	Populationa	Interventionb	Comparatorc	Outcomesd	Duration of Follow-Upe
Stolovitzky et al (2018); Sidle et al (2019)8,9,	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 limitations 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.

Study	Allocationa	Blindingb	Selective Reportingc	Data Completenessd	Powere	Statisticalf
Stolovitzky et al (2018)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 limitations 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 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.

For individuals with symptomatic nasal obstruction due to internal NVC who receive an absorbable lateral nasal valve implant, the evidence includes one RCT and two nonrandomized prospective, single-cohort studies. The relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, treatment-related morbidity, functional outcomes, and QOL. Overall, improvements in the NOSE score have been demonstrated in the study reports. Follow-up at three 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 (one 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.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surgery

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surgery (2010) 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 policy. 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 (e.g., 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

A search of ClinicalTrials.gov in September 2019 identified an ongoing trial that might influence this policy is 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 2020

NCT: national clinical trial.

^a Denotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial.]
________________________________________________________________________________________

Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy Development Process:

This Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy (the “Medical Policy”) has been developed by Horizon BCBSNJ’s Medical Policy Committee (the “Committee”) consistent with generally accepted standards of medical practice, and reflects Horizon BCBSNJ’s view of the subject health care services, supplies or procedures, and in what circumstances they are deemed to be medically necessary or experimental/ investigational in nature. This Medical Policy also considers whether and to what degree the subject health care services, supplies or procedures are clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration and if they are considered effective for the illnesses, injuries or diseases discussed. Where relevant, this Medical Policy considers whether the subject health care services, supplies or procedures are being requested primarily for the convenience of the covered person or the health care provider. It may also consider whether the services, supplies or procedures are more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services, supplies or procedures that are at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the relevant illness, injury or disease. In reaching its conclusion regarding what it considers to be the generally accepted standards of medical practice, the Committee reviews and considers the following: all credible scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, physician and health care provider specialty society recommendations, the views of physicians and health care providers practicing in relevant clinical areas (including, but not limited to, the prevailing opinion within the appropriate specialty) and any other relevant factor as determined by applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Index:
Absorbable Nasal Implant for Treatment of Nasal Valve Collapse
LATERA® (Spirox)

References:
1. Howard BK, Rohrich RJ. Understanding the nasal airway: principles and practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. Mar 2002;109(3):1128-1146; quiz 1145-1146. 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):151-155. PMID 19413614

4. Spirox. Latera. 2017; http://www.spiroxmed.com/latera. Accessed September 10, 2018.

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):157-163. 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):358-361. 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, 2019 Jun 22;9(8). PMID 31226238

8. 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. May 14 2018. PMID 29756407

9. 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, 2019 Jun 30. PMID 31254279

10. San Nicol 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 Nicoló 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, 2018 Sep 19;34(5). PMID 30227454

Codes:
(The list of codes is not intended to be all-inclusive and is included below for informational purposes only. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis, drug or device code(s) does not constitute or imply authorization, certification, approval, offer of coverage or guarantee of payment.)

CPT*

30999

C9749