A cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants for single sided deafness in adults and children in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cochlear Implant (CI) has been shown to improve speech comprehension, sound localization and tinnitus in adults with Single-Sided-Deafness (SSD) compared to standard treatment currently available in the Dutch setting such as a CROS (Contralateral Routing of Signals) hearing device or a BCD (Bone Conduction Device). Also, for the pediatric population with SSD, CI has shown to be clinically meaningful. Because currently no information is available on the health economic effects of CI in adults and children with SSD in the Netherlands, a cost-utility analysis was conducted. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model, for both the adult and pediatric SSD population, with three states: implant, no implant, and dead. CI was compared with the Bone Conduction Device (BCD) treatment, requiring surgery and no specific treatment. The time horizon of the model was lifelong, costs were discounted with 3% and effects with 1.5%. A societal perspective was taken, including productivity costs in the analysis, with costing data based on publicly available prices for the Netherlands. Values for clinical outcome parameters, i.e. hearing gain, and event probabilities were based on existing literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses as well as scenario analyses were performed to outline uncertainty of individual and combined parameters. RESULTS: Mean per patient costs for CI in the adult population were €194,051 (95%-CrI €177,274 to €211,108) compared to the total costs of €185,310 (95%-CrI €182,367 to €194,142) for BCD resulting in a cost difference of €8,826 (95%-CrI -€5,020 to €18,252). Compared to no treatment, the cost difference was -€25,089 (95%-CrI -€31,678 to -€6,003). Adults who were treated with CI gained 18.41 (95%-CrI 18.07 to 18.75) quality adjusted life years (QALY) whereas BCD patients gained 15.81 QALYs (95%-CrI 15.53 to 16.10), a difference of 2.60 QALYs (95%-CrI 2.15 to 3.05). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for adults with CI was determined to be €3,494/QALY gained. Patient without treatment gained 13.46 QALY (95%-CrI 13.20 to 13.73), a difference of 4.95 (95%-CrI 4.87 to 5.01) resulting in CI dominating no treatment. The ICER remained below the Dutch threshold of €20,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. For children, CI dominated when compared to BCD and when compared to no treatment. Compared to BCD, CI led to a cost saving of €29,611 (95%-CrI -€126,800 to €54,375) and compared to no treatment, CI resulted in a cost saving of €57,658 (95%-CrI -€146,687 to €5,919). The incremental QALY gain compared to BCD was 7.22 (95%-CrI 4.19 to 8.55) and 26.03 (95%-CrI 20.82 to 31.06) compared to no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this health economic evaluation with a Markov cohort model, it is very likely that CI is cost-effective compared to BCD and to no treatment in the Dutch adult and pediatric population with SSD. In both populations the ICER was below the Dutch cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/QALY.

Economic Analysis of Cochlear Implants in Adults With Bilateral Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss. A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of cochlear implants (CI) in adults with severe to profound bilateral hearing loss. DATABASES REVIEWED: PubMed (Medline), The Cochrane Library, Embase via Elsevier, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Scopus. METHODS: The study included adult participants with severe to profound bilateral neurosensory hearing loss. The analysis encompassed quality of life improvements, costs, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, and prospective or retrospective cohort studies published in English between 2010 and 2023 were retrieved. Exclusion criteria included incomplete studies, abstracts, clinical cases, editorials, letters, studies involving pediatric populations, single-side deafness, methodology research, noneconomic aspects of CI, mixed child and adult data, and studies published before 2010. The risk of bias was assessed following the criteria outlined in Appendix I of the economic evaluation's quality assessment as per the NICE Guideline Development Method. RESULTS: Ten articles met the criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. One study conducted a prospective cost-utility analyses, one carried out a cost-benefit analyses, one was a randomized controlled clinical trial focusing on cost-utility, and another was a clinical trial addressing cost-effectiveness. Six studies employed Markov models, and one study utilized uniquely the Monte Carlo method. None quantified the economic impact of improved hearing on cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of sources impacted data quality. Unilateral and sequential bilateral CI appeared to be cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids or nontechnological support. When properly indicated, simultaneous bilateral CIs are cost-effective compared to no interventions and to unilateral cochlear implantation through differential discounting or variations from the base cases, especially with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer.

Remote Check as a tele-health instrument for cochlear implant recipients: Analysis of impact and feasibility of application.

PURPOSE: The number of cochlear implant (CI) surgeries is growing over time, with the risk of overloading CI centers in the post-surgical management. Telemedicine is a possible solution to address this phenomenon. Remote Check (RC) is an application that is specific for CI recipients monitoring. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of application, potential economic impact and patients' acceptance of RC. METHODS: The study is retrospective investigation, data on clinical, audiological features (from remote and on-site evaluation), and satisfaction surveys of 66 consecutive patients were collected; costs required for RC and for on-site evaluations were recorded as well. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety RC sessions were completed by the patients (2.88 sessions per patient). RC and on-site audiometry significantly correlated except for the 500 Hz frequency. Estimated costs for the Italian National Health System for RC review and on-site evaluations were 1.32€ and 3.49€ per minute, respectively. High satisfaction for RC was reached in 91 % of patients. CONCLUSION: RC revealed to be a reliable, cost-effective and well accepted tool in CI monitoring. This study preliminarily supports the hypothesis that RC could be a valid instrument to reduce CI management overload in the outpatient clinic.

Hearing Loss in Children: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Hearing loss in children is common and by age 18 years, affects nearly 1 of every 5 children. Without hearing rehabilitation, hearing loss can cause detrimental effects on speech, language, developmental, educational, and cognitive outcomes in children. OBSERVATIONS: Consequences of hearing loss in children include worse outcomes in speech, language, education, social functioning, cognitive abilities, and quality of life. Hearing loss can be congenital, delayed onset, or acquired with possible etiologies including congenital infections, genetic causes including syndromic and nonsyndromic etiologies, and trauma, among others. Evaluation of hearing loss must be based on suspected diagnosis, type, laterality and degree of hearing loss, age of onset, and additional variables such as exposure to cranial irradiation. Hearing rehabilitation for children with hearing loss may include use of hearing aids, cochlear implants, bone anchored devices, or use of assistive devices such as frequency modulating systems. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hearing loss in children is common, and there has been substantial progress in diagnosis and management of these cases. Early identification of hearing loss and understanding its etiology can assist with prognosis and counseling of families. In addition, awareness of treatment strategies including the many hearing device options, cochlear implant, and assistive devices can help direct management of the patient to optimize outcomes.

The French Cochlear Implant Registry (EPIIC): General indicators.

Cochlear and brainstem implants have been included on the list of reimbursable products (LPPR) in France since March of 2009. The implants were initially inscribed for 5 years, after which an application for renewal with the French National Commission for the Evaluation of Medical Devices and Health Technologies (Commission Nationale d'évaluation des dispositifs médicaux et des technologies de santé - CNEDiMTS) was required [Haute Autorité de santé, 2009]. Upon registration to the list of reimbursable products, the companies and the reference centers for cochlear and brainstem implants were asked to set up a post-registration registry called EPIIC. This article reports the evolution in the EPIIC registry of the general indicators for 5051 patients over the five years from 2012-2016.

Lifetime cost of unilateral cochlear implants in adults: a Monte Carlo simulation.

BACKROUND/OBJECTIVE: Due to increasing prevalence of hearing loss and relaxation of candidacy criteria of cochlear implant (CI) supply, the number of implantations is likely to further increase. Statutory health insurances are facing ever more urgent financing challenges since CI treatment causes high life-long costs. Additionally, increasing life expectancy and earlier implantation may extend therapy time and cost. With every case being individual, this study aims to calculate the possible lifetime cost of unilateral CI treatment in adults including stochastic uncertainties. METHODS: Taking a statutory health insurance perspective, relevant cost components of CI therapy and their values were identified. The Monte Carlo method was used to simulate lifetime cost considering age at first implantation and distributions of costrelevant variables. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the most crucial variables impacting on lifetime cost. RESULTS: Lifetime cost of CI treatment varies according to age at first implantation, respectively remaining lifetime; the earlier the implantation, the higher the overall cost. According to our simulation, the average lifetime cost for an adult patient first implanted between the age of 20-80 is at 53,030 € (present value). Cost of implantation and periodic speech processor exchanges show the highest impact on the total cost. DISCUSSION: Health care systems could face rising expenses for CI supply by technical development. Innovative life-long CIs could achieve significant savings per case that could finance additional implant cost. Until then, further targeted research will be required. CONCLUSION: CI-related cost for statutory health insurance crucially depends on the patient-side demand for cochlear implants. Therefore, cost forecasts must also consider the development of demand.

Cost-effective analysis of unilateral cochlear implantation under the Taiwan national healthcare insurance.

Objective: The value of cochlear implantation (CI) has not been established in Taiwan. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of paediatric CI within the context of Taiwan's national health insurance (NHI) programme.Design: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unilateral CI (UCI) with a contralateral acoustic hearing aid (UCI-HA) compared with a bilateral HA. We performed one-way sensitivity analyses to identify the cost variables that affected the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) the most. Monte Carlo simulation was used to explore the simultaneous effect of all uncertain parameters on cost-effectiveness.Study sample: Not applicable.Results: Compared with bilateral HAs, the ICER for UCI-HA was $6487 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The ICERs were consistently below $7000 per QALY gained and were most sensitive to the selling price of the external CI device. When this selling price increased by 10%, the ICER of UCI-HA would increase to $6954 per QALY gained. UCI-HA has a probability greater than 50% of being cost-effective if the cost-effectiveness threshold exceeds approximately $10,000 per QALY.Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that within the context of Taiwan's NHI programme, UCI is highly cost-effective for deaf children.

Untreated severe-to-profound hearing loss and the cochlear implant situation: how policy and practice are disabling New Zealand society.

As a signatory to Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, Aotearoa New Zealand aims to be a "non-disabling society-a place where disabled people have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations". Yet many adult New Zealanders with severe-to-profound hearing loss (SPHL) due to sensorineural deterioration over time are being denied timely access to publicly funded cochlear implants. This presents a serious inequity in Aotearoa New Zealand's health system and contravenes disability and human rights principles. For Maori affected by SPHL, this brings additional challenges along with broader impacts on Maori health and development. These issues are investigated through a self-case study together with a review of relevant evidence-based research and public policy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bilateral cochlear implants for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears in Singapore.

A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that provides a sense of sound for the user, which can be used unilaterally or bilaterally. Although there is advocacy for the benefits of binaural hearing, the high cost of cochlear implant raises the question of whether its additional benefits over the use of an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear outweigh its costs. This cost-effectiveness analysis aimed to separately assess the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations compared to bimodal hearing (use of unilateral cochlear implant combined with an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear) in children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained and costs associated with bilateral cochlear implants over the lifetime horizon were estimated based on a four-state Markov model. The analysis results showed that, at the 2017 mean cost, compared to bimodal hearing, patients receiving bilateral cochlear implants experienced more QALYs but incurred higher costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD$60,607 per QALY gained for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation, and USD$81,782 per QALY gained for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants is most sensitive to utility gain associated with second cochlear implant, and cost of bilateral cochlear implants. ICERs increased when the utility gain from bilateral cochlear implants decreased; ICERs exceeded USD$120,000 per QALY gained when the utility gain was halved from 0.03 to 0.015 in both simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations. The choice of incremental utility gain associated with the second cochlear implant is an area of considerable uncertainty.

Expanding Access: Cost-effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Education in Asia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI) with mainstream education and deaf education with sign language for treatment of children with profound sensorineural hearing loss in low- and lower-middle income countries in Asia. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3. RESULTS: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39). CONCLUSION: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.

Age Dependent Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation in Adults. Is There an Age Related Cut-off?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of age at implantation on the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI). STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model. SETTING: Adults with profound postlingual hearing loss in a "high income" country. INTERVENTION: Unilateral and sequential CI were compared with hearing aids (HA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated as costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in CHF/QALY), for individual age and sex combinations in relation to two different willingness to pay thresholds. 1 CHF (Swiss franc) is equivalent to 1.01 USD. RESULTS: When a threshold of 50,000 CHF per QALY is applied, unilateral CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 91 for women and 89 for men. Sequential CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 87 for women and 85 for men. If a more contemporary threshold of 100,000 CHF per QALY is applied, sequential CI in comparison to unilateral CI is cost-effective up to an age of 80 for women and 78 for men. CONCLUSIONS: Performing both sequential and unilateral CI is cost-effective up to very advanced ages when compared with hearing aids.

Cochlear implants: a transformative technology.

Cochlear implants bring sound to people living with permanent hearing loss. But making them accessible to all in need is a major challenge. Andrey Shukshin reports.

Overcoming developing world challenges of cochlear implantation: Chinese perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over a short period, China has adopted cochlear implants and emerged as a burgeoning market. This represents a valuable case study for emerging countries in terms of planning, initiating, and growing cochlear implant programs. RECENT FINDINGS: Although many challenges such as funding, establishing infrastructure, and recipient community support have been addressed, many more remain. Consistent rapid escalation in numbers has been driven by push-and-pull factors. Federal, state, and private funding have all played a role. SUMMARY: The review highlights the massive need for hearing rehabilitation that currently exists in China. The shortfall can only be addressed by a purposeful and coordinated approach involving government policy, The China Disabled Persons Federation, the industry partnering with hearing and medical professionals and the deaf community.