Cost–Utility Analysis of Cochlear Implantation in Australian Adults

Foteff, Chris; Kennedy, Steven; Milton, Abul Hasnat; Deger, Melike; Payk, Florian; Sanderson, Georgina

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000000999

Cited by 39 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our analysis agrees with recent studies that concluded that BCI is cost‐effective for children, at least when performed simultaneously, and possibly also for adults, and contradicts the two studies that asserted, after brief analyses, that it was not cost‐effective (in Spain) even for children…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost‐effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in Spain

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Summerfield et al concluded that pediatric BCI is cost‐effective, but with a probability of only 48% . Recent studies suggest that BCI is cost‐effective in children and adults . For systematic reviews see Lammers et al and a Washington State Health Care Authority report …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in Spain

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cochlear implantation (CI) as a cost‐effective measure is superior to bilateral hearing aids in severely to profoundly deaf adults with respect to incremental costs per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) . There is also evidence that bilateral CI is clinically more effective than unilateral CI .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The choice of which is performed varies among centers, with both clinical and financial factors coming into play. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence does not currently recommend bilateral CI, sequential or simultaneous, for bilaterally deaf adults in its guidance document . Conversely, the Washington State Healthcare Authority approved coverage of both SeqCI and SimCI in both children and adults in 2013 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence does not currently recommend bilateral CI, sequential or simultaneous, for bilaterally deaf adults in its guidance document . Conversely, the Washington State Healthcare Authority approved coverage of both SeqCI and SimCI in both children and adults in 2013 . Current public funding policy in Australian hospitals allows for SeqCI but not SimCI .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simultaneous versus sequential bilateral cochlear implants in adults: Cost analysis in a US setting

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of Stapedectomy vs Hearing Aids in the Treatment of Otosclerosis

Gillard

Harris

2020

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Otosclerosis can be managed through surgical treatment, such as stapedectomy, or through hearing amplification with hearing aids. To our knowledge, there has been no cost-effectiveness analysis of these 2 treatment methods.OBJECTIVE To determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aid use for the treatment of otosclerosis. DESIGN AND SETTINGIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision tree was built to model the treatment choices for otosclerosis. The tree was run as a Markov model of a case patient aged 30 years. The model spanned the patient's lifetime to determine total costs of management of otosclerosis with stapedectomy or hearing aids. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a willingness to pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A 2-way sensitivity analysis was performed for the cost of stapedectomy vs the cost of hearing aids. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the likelihood that stapedectomy would be cost-effective across a range of model inputs. INTERVENTIONS Stapedectomy vs hearing aid use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aids in the treatment of otosclerosis. The secondary objectives were to determine which factors are associated with the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTSStapedectomy had an estimated lifetime cost of $19 417.95, while hearing aids had an average lifetime cost of $16 439.94. Stapedectomy also had a benefit of 16.58 QALYs, and hearing aids had a benefit of 15.82 QALYs. Stapedectomy increases lifetime costs by $2978.01, with a benefit of 0.76 QALYs compared with hearing aids. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for stapedectomy is $3918.43 per QALY. The model was sensitive to the cost of stapedectomy and the cost of stapedectomy revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that stapedectomy was cost-effective compared with hearing aids 99.98% of the time.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Stapedectomy appears to be a cost-effective option for treating otosclerosis compared with hearing aid use, from the patient perspective.

show abstract

Cost–Utility Analysis of Cochlear Implantation in Australian Adults

Cited by 39 publications

References 18 publications

Cost‐effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in Spain

Cost‐effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in Spain

Simultaneous versus sequential bilateral cochlear implants in adults: Cost analysis in a US setting

Cost-effectiveness of Stapedectomy vs Hearing Aids in the Treatment of Otosclerosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About