Foteff Chris, Kennedy Steven, Milton Abul Hasnat, Deger Melike, Payk Florian, Sanderson Georgina
*Cochlear Limited, Macquarie University, Sydney †Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (CCEB), School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia ‡Cochlear AG Europe, Europe Middle East and Africa Headquarters, Basel, Switzerland.
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Jun;37(5):454-61. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000999.
Sequential and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants are emerging as appropriate treatment options for Australian adults with sensory deficits in both cochleae. Current funding of Australian public hospitals does not provide for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) as a separate surgical procedure. Previous cost-effectiveness studies of sequential and simultaneous bilateral CI assumed 100% of unilaterally treated patients' transition to a sequential bilateral CI. This assumption does not place cochlear implantation in the context of the generally treated population. When mutually exclusive treatment options exist, such as unilateral CI, sequential bilateral CI, and simultaneous bilateral CI, the mean costs of the treated populations are weighted in the calculation of incremental cost-utility ratios. The objective was to evaluate the cost-utility of bilateral hearing aids (HAs) compared with unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI in Australian adults with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.
Cost-utility analysis of secondary sources input to a Markov model.
Australian health care perspective, lifetime horizon with costs and outcomes discounted 5% annually.
Bilateral HAs as treatment for bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss compared with unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI.
Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (AUD/QALY).
When compared with bilateral hearing aids the incremental cost-utility ratio for the CI treatment population was AUD11,160/QALY. The incremental cost-utility ratio was weighted according to the number of patients treated unilaterally, sequentially, and simultaneously, as these were mutually exclusive treatment options.
No peer-reviewed articles have reported the incremental analysis of cochlear implantation in a continuum of care for surgically treated populations with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI were cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids. Technologies that reduce the total number of visits for a patient could introduce additional cost efficiencies into clinical practice.
对于澳大利亚双耳存在感觉缺陷的成年人,序贯双侧人工耳蜗植入和同期双侧人工耳蜗植入正逐渐成为合适的治疗选择。澳大利亚公立医院目前的资金安排并未将同期双侧人工耳蜗植入作为一项单独的外科手术提供资金支持。先前关于序贯双侧和同期双侧人工耳蜗植入的成本效益研究假定,接受单侧治疗的患者中有100%会过渡到序贯双侧人工耳蜗植入。这一假设并未将人工耳蜗植入置于总体治疗人群的背景下。当存在相互排斥的治疗选择时,如单侧人工耳蜗植入、序贯双侧人工耳蜗植入和同期双侧人工耳蜗植入,在计算增量成本效用比时会对治疗人群的平均成本进行加权。目的是评估在澳大利亚患有双侧重度至极重度感音神经性听力损失的成年人中,双侧助听器与单侧、序贯和同期双侧人工耳蜗植入相比的成本效用。
对输入马尔可夫模型的二手资料进行成本效用分析。
从澳大利亚医疗保健角度出发,采用终身视角,成本和结果按每年5%进行贴现。
将双侧助听器作为双侧重度至极重度感音神经性听力损失的治疗方法,与单侧、序贯和同期双侧人工耳蜗植入进行比较。
每质量调整生命年的增量成本(澳元/质量调整生命年)。
与双侧助听器相比,人工耳蜗植入治疗人群的增量成本效用比为11,160澳元/质量调整生命年。由于这些是相互排斥的治疗选择,增量成本效用比根据单侧、序贯和同期接受治疗的患者数量进行加权。
尚无同行评审文章报道在对双侧重度至极重度感音神经性听力损失的手术治疗人群进行连续护理时,人工耳蜗植入的增量分析。与双侧助听器相比,单侧、序贯和同期双侧人工耳蜗植入具有成本效益。能够减少患者就诊总次数的技术可为临床实践带来额外的成本效益。