Health State Utility Values Associated with Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants in adults remains uncertain despite established clinical benefits. In cost-effectiveness studies, benefit is often measured by change in health state utility value (HSUV), a single number summary of health-related quality of life anchored at 0 (state of being dead) and 1 (perfect health). Small differences in bilateral cochlear implant HSUV change conclusions of published models, and invalid estimates can therefore mislead policy and funding decisions. As such, we aimed to review and synthesize published HSUV estimates associated with cochlear implants. DESIGN: We included observational or experimental studies reporting HSUV for adult patients (age ≥18 years) with at least moderate-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears who received unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases up to May 1, 2021. Study and participant characteristics and HSUV outcomes were extracted. Narrative synthesis is reported for all studies. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to generate pooled estimates for the mean difference in HSUV for three comparisons: (1) unilateral cochlear implant versus preimplant, (2) bilateral cochlear implants versus preimplant, (3) bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implants. Our principal measure was pooled mean difference in HSUV. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies reporting unique patient cohorts were identified. Health Utilities Index, 3 (HUI-3) was the most common HSUV elicitation method. HSUV from 19 preimplant mean estimates (1402 patients), 19 unilateral cochlear implant mean estimates (1701 patients), and 5 bilateral cochlear implants mean estimates (83 patients) were pooled to estimate mean differences in HUI-3 HSUV by network meta-analysis. Compared with preimplant, a unilateral cochlear implant was associated with a mean change in HSUV of +0.17 (95% credible interval [CrI] +0.12 to +0.23) and bilateral cochlear implants were associated with a mean change of +0.25 (95% CrI +0.12 to +0.37). No significant difference in HSUV was detected for bilateral compared with unilateral cochlear implants (+0.08 [95% CrI -0.06 to +0.21]). Overall study quality was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review and network meta-analysis comprise the best-available resource for parameterization of cost-utility models of cochlear implantation in adults and highlight the need to critically evaluate the validity of available HSUV instruments for bilateral cochlear implant populations.Protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42018091838).

Provincial Variation of Cochlear Implantation Surgical Volumes and Cost in Canada.

Objectives To investigate provincial cochlear implantation (CI) annual volume and cost trends. Study Design Database analysis. Setting National surgical volume and cost database. Subjects and Methods Aggregate-level provincial CI volumes and cost data for adult and pediatric CI surgery from 2005 to 2014 were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Population-level aging forecast estimates were obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Finance and Statistics Canada. Linear fit, analysis of variance, and Tukey's analyses were utilized to compare variances and means. Results The national volume of annual CI procedures is forecasted to increase by <30 per year ( R2 = 0.88). Ontario has the highest mean annual CI volume (282; 95% confidence interval, 258-308), followed by Alberta (92.0; 95% confidence interval, 66.3-118), which are significantly higher than all other provinces ( P < .05 for each). Ontario's annual CI procedure volume is forecasted to increase by <11 per year ( R2 = 0.62). Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have the highest CI procedures per 100,000 residents as compared with all other provinces ( P < .05). Alberta, Newfoundland, and Manitoba have the highest estimated implantation cost of all provinces ( P < .05). Conclusions Historical trends of CI forecast modest national volume growth. Potential bottlenecks include provincial funding and access to surgical expertise. The proportion of older adult patients who may benefit from a CI will rise, and there may be insufficient capacity to meet this need. Delayed access to CI for pediatric patients is also a concern, given recent reports of long wait times for CI surgery.

The effect of different utility measures on the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine if the choice of health utility measure affects the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) when assessing the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI). STUDY DESIGN: A scenario-based estimate with three scenarios: 1) a patient with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss with no intervention, 2) the same patient with a unilateral CI with average or better performance, and 3) the same patient with bilateral CIs with average or better performance. METHODS: One hundred and forty-two subjects comprising preimplantees (n = 30), unilateral cochlear implantees (n = 30), bilateral implantees (n = 30), and healthcare professionals (n = 52). The four health utility instruments applied were the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3), European Quality of Life Questionnaire in 5 Domains (EQ5D), visual analog scale (VAS), and time trade-off (TTO). Cost for each implant was based on a 25-year time horizon, 50% discount for the second implant, and a 15% failure rate. RESULTS: Using the HUI3, the utility gain from unilateral to bilateral implantation was 0.035 or 11.5% of the total utility gain. This ratio was higher using the other instruments: EQ5D (22.2%), VAS (35.0%), and TTO (41.4%). For the scenario of bilateral CI compared to no intervention, HUI3 ICUR estimates were the lowest, and for bilateral CI compared to unilateral CI, HUI3 ICUR estimates were the highest. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of utility instrument in cost-utility analysis of bilateral CI heavily influences whether the second implant is deemed cost-effective. The HUI3 is the utility of choice in CI studies and is the most conservative. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Quality of life in cochlear implantees: comparing utility values obtained through the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-6D and the Health Utility Index Mark 3.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the changes in health-related quality of life in unilateral adult cochlear implant patients using the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-36 (SF-36) and the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI-3). To do so, a health utility index was obtained by converting the SF-36 to the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-6D (SF-6D) to permit comparison with HUI-3 scores in the context of health preference as measured by quality-adjusted life years. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Eighty-one postlingually deaf adult patients undergoing cochlear implantation completed the SF-36 and HUI-3 preoperatively and at a median of 1.4 years (range, 11 months-5 years) after cochlear implantation. RESULTS: The SF-36 improvement was statistically significant in two domains. The SF-36 data were converted to SF-6D. Preoperatively, the mean SF-6D utility score was 0.575 ± 0.056. One year postoperatively this score increased to 0.590 ± 0.064. The improvement of 0.015 ± 0.082 was not statistically significant (P = .1118). Of the HUI-3 attributes, two showed improvement between preoperative and postoperative evaluations. The overall HUI-3 score increased from 0.464 ± 0.207 preoperatively to 0.611 ± 0.190 postoperatively. The gain of 0.146 ± 0.19 was statistically significant (P < .0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the SF-6D and HUI-3 showed a very small correlation, both pre- and postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Against the backdrop of diminishing resources for healthcare, cost-effective analysis is fast becoming an important tool. There remains a strong need for health-related quality-of-life instruments that can truly reflect the benefit of cochlear implantation, in which utility estimates are fundamentally important. The SF-36 scores, when converted to SF-6D, do not correlate well with HUI-3 scores in a cohort of adult cochlear implant recipients. The HUI-3 remains the most appropriate tool for this patient group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Cost-utility analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a health economic assessment from the perspective of a publicly funded program.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) in deaf adults. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: Ninety patients and 52 health professionals served as proxies to estimate the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation, utilizing the Health Utility Index. Three scenarios were created to reflect 1) deafness without intervention, 2) unilateral CI, and 3) bilateral CI. Cost evaluation reflected the burden on a publicly funded healthcare system. The base case included 25 years of service provision, processor upgrades every 5 years, 50% price reduction for second side, and 15% failure rate. Discounting and sensitivity analyses were applied. RESULTS: Costs were $63,632 (unilateral CI), $111,764 (bilateral CI), and $48,132 (incremental cost of second CI). The health preference gained from no intervention to unilateral CI, and to bilateral CI were 0.270 and 0.305. Incremental utility gained by the second implant was 11.5% of total. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $14,658/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for bilateral CI compared to no intervention. It was stable regardless of discounting or sensitivity analyses. ICUR was $55,020/QALY from unilateral to bilateral CI with higher uncertainties. It improved with differential discounting, further second-side price reduction, and reduced frequency of processor upgrades. ICUR worsened with reduced length of use and higher failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential bilateral CI was cost-effective when compared to no intervention, although gains were made mostly by the first implant. Cost-effectiveness compared to unilateral implantation was borderline but improved through base case variations to reflect long-term gains or cost-saving measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C.

Face validity study of an artificial temporal bone for simulation surgery.

HYPOTHESIS: Using the rapid prototype (RP) technology, a physical construct of a human temporal bone was developed based on cadaveric tissue to permit simulated surgical training. The objective of the study was to test the face validity of the model. BACKGROUND: The cost and access to human cadaveric temporal bones is becoming increasingly challenging, particularly if there are religious and regulatory restrictions. There is a need to develop alternative strategies to improve accessibility. METHODS: Ultra high-resolution computed tomography (CT) images (0.15-mm resolution) were obtained from a cadaver temporal bone. Manual segmentation and conversion into a stereolithography file format permitted printing on a RP stereolithography printer. A 3-dimensional physical model was hardened to achieve the desired consistency. Eight practicing otologists were recruited to evaluate this model. Respondents were asked to drill the artificial bone and complete a rating survey upon completion. RESULTS: In using a Likert scale between 1 and 5, results for anatomic accuracy were favorable, with the best scores for overall morphology (4.63) and for lateral structures within the bone (4.5). The poorest scores were for the semicircular canals (3.75) and chorda tympani (3.25). Scores for haptic realism were good as well. The average score for the question "overall, how valuable is the model as a surgical simulator" was 4.1. The experts felt that junior residents (PGY 1-3) would benefit most from this surgical education model. CONCLUSION: The outer structures of the RP artificial temporal bone can be considered to have face validity. Improvements will continue to be made to address some of the deficiencies in the anatomic and haptic realism of this model.

Early-deafened adult cochlear implant users: assessment of outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adults deafened in the prelingual and perilingual stages of speech development realize objective and subjective benefits from cochlear implantation. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of the open-set speech recognition and subjective data such as use and quality of life. RESULTS: Between 1989 and 1999, 198 deafened adults underwent cochlear implantation at Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre. Of these, 44 patients were deafened pre- or perilingually. These subjects were implanted with a Nucleus 22, Nucleus 24 (Cochlear Corporation, Denver, Colorado, USA), or Clarion (Advanced Bionics Corporation, Sylmar, California, USA) device. The average age at implantation was 34 years (range 14-62 years). Significant differences in speech perception, as measured by a composite score of open-set word, phoneme, and sentence recognition, were found among groups who differed by type of education and communication training received in childhood. CONCLUSION: By and large, open-set speech recognition in prelingually and perilingually deafened adults is inferior to that achieved in postlingually deafened adults and varies according to the type of communication training they received. However, cochlear implants have significantly improved the overall communication skills and quality of life in all subgroups of patients.

A matched-pair comparison of two cochlear implant systems.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the overall performance of two implant systems based on audiologic outcome, tinnitus handicap, and quality of life using objective and subjective measures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Science Centre. METHODS: Two matched groups, with 24 Nucleus 22 SPEAK (Advanced Bionics, Symlar, CA) and 24 Clarion CIS (Cochlear Corporation, Sydney, Australia), were selected. Patients were administered survey forms to evaluate subjective tinnitus and dizziness symptomatology, as well as a 27-item tinnitus handicap questionnaire. Both groups were administered survey forms to assess the frequency of implant use, the subjective benefit derived, and the perceived impact on quality of life. The 36-Item Short-Form (SF-36) Health Survey was administered as a measure of quality of life at 6 months postimplant. Standardized open-set speech recognition parameters were evaluated at 24 months postimplant. Vestibular function was determined by pre-and postimplant electronystagmography with caloric testing. The first author was blinded to implant type during data collection and analysis RESULTS: Cochlear implantation yielded a significant 22% reduction in overall tinnitus handicap (p < .05). There was a 27% reduction in vestibular function that failed to show statistical significance (p = .78). There was no significant reduction in vestibular function postimplant in either group. The average open-set speech perception responses at 24 months postimplant were monosyllabic word recognition 45%, phoneme recognition 65%, and sentence recognition 86.5%. There was no significant difference with respect to implant type. Overall, 76% of implantees reported satisfaction with the amount of subjective benefit they received from their implants. Furthermore, 96% reported an overall positive impact on quality of life. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference between the two multichannel devices studied using the present software and hardware configurations.