Abstract
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.
Highlights
Unilateral cochlear implantation (CI), sequential bilateral CI, and simultaneous bilateral CI were evaluated as part of the mutually exclusive and exhaustive CI surgical treatment options available in a continuum of care provided to adults with sensory organ deficits in two cochleae
The ICUR for unilateral CI compared with bilateral hearing aids (HAs) was AUD 9,799/QALY and simultaneous bilateral CI compared with bilateral HAs was AUD 26,765/QALY
When CI was compared at the decision point to treat surgically, the ICUR for CI compared with bilateral HAs was AUD 11,160/QALY
Summary
Sequential and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants are emerging as appropriate treatment options for Australian adults with sensory deficits in both cochleae. 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. Setting: Australian health care perspective, lifetime horizon with costs and outcomes discounted 5% annually
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call