Cost-effectiveness of implementing routine hearing screening using a tablet audiometer for pediatric cystic fibrosis patients receiving high-dose IV aminoglycosides.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) patients who receive high-dose aminoglycosides can acquire inner ear damage and subsequent hearing loss. There is no current standard protocol for assessing ototoxicity in CF centers in the United States. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-implemented routine hearing screening for ototoxicity among pediatric patients using a clinically validated tablet audiometer to allow for earlier detection of hearing loss in an exploratory analysis. A Markov decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing routine screening with monthly cycles over a 3-year time horizon. The model measured the difference in promptly detected hearing loss, delayed detected hearing loss, and undetected hearing loss, compared with current screening practices. Model inputs were obtained through a comprehensive literature review. Primary model outcomes included total health care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with a 3% yearly discount. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, routine screening using a tablet audiometer increased promptly detected hearing loss by 8 patients. There was an incremental gain of 3.2 QALYs at an increased cost of $333,826 compared with current screening practices. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $103,771 per QALY. In the 1-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER ranged between $64,345 and $258,830 per QALY. Using a tablet audiometer for routine hearing screening appears to be a cost-effective option at a $150,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold when only considering the immediate benefits gained. This analysis did not examine the long-term effects of early detection in language development for pediatric patients. Huang reports funding from the University of North Carolina and GlaxoSmithKline Health Outcomes Fellowship. GlaxoSmithKline had no involvement in the study creation, analysis, or manuscript composition. The other authors have nothing to disclose.