Economic Analysis of Cochlear Implants in Adults With Bilateral Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss. A Systematic Review of the Literature.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Otology & Neurotology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-18 DOI:10.1097/MAO.0000000000004225
Beatriz Tena-García, Sergio Barrientos-Trigo, María José Escudero-Carretero, Serafín Sánchez-Gómez
{"title":"Economic Analysis of Cochlear Implants in Adults With Bilateral Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss. A Systematic Review of the Literature.","authors":"Beatriz Tena-García, Sergio Barrientos-Trigo, María José Escudero-Carretero, Serafín Sánchez-Gómez","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of cochlear implants (CI) in adults with severe to profound bilateral hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Databases reviewed: </strong>PubMed (Medline), The Cochrane Library, Embase via Elsevier, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Scopus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included adult participants with severe to profound bilateral neurosensory hearing loss. The analysis encompassed quality of life improvements, costs, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, and prospective or retrospective cohort studies published in English between 2010 and 2023 were retrieved. Exclusion criteria included incomplete studies, abstracts, clinical cases, editorials, letters, studies involving pediatric populations, single-side deafness, methodology research, noneconomic aspects of CI, mixed child and adult data, and studies published before 2010. The risk of bias was assessed following the criteria outlined in Appendix I of the economic evaluation's quality assessment as per the NICE Guideline Development Method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten articles met the criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. One study conducted a prospective cost-utility analyses, one carried out a cost-benefit analyses, one was a randomized controlled clinical trial focusing on cost-utility, and another was a clinical trial addressing cost-effectiveness. Six studies employed Markov models, and one study utilized uniquely the Monte Carlo method. None quantified the economic impact of improved hearing on cognitive function.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The heterogeneity of sources impacted data quality. Unilateral and sequential bilateral CI appeared to be cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids or nontechnological support. When properly indicated, simultaneous bilateral CIs are cost-effective compared to no interventions and to unilateral cochlear implantation through differential discounting or variations from the base cases, especially with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004225","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of cochlear implants (CI) in adults with severe to profound bilateral hearing loss.

Databases reviewed: PubMed (Medline), The Cochrane Library, Embase via Elsevier, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Scopus.

Methods: The study included adult participants with severe to profound bilateral neurosensory hearing loss. The analysis encompassed quality of life improvements, costs, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, and prospective or retrospective cohort studies published in English between 2010 and 2023 were retrieved. Exclusion criteria included incomplete studies, abstracts, clinical cases, editorials, letters, studies involving pediatric populations, single-side deafness, methodology research, noneconomic aspects of CI, mixed child and adult data, and studies published before 2010. The risk of bias was assessed following the criteria outlined in Appendix I of the economic evaluation's quality assessment as per the NICE Guideline Development Method.

Results: Ten articles met the criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. One study conducted a prospective cost-utility analyses, one carried out a cost-benefit analyses, one was a randomized controlled clinical trial focusing on cost-utility, and another was a clinical trial addressing cost-effectiveness. Six studies employed Markov models, and one study utilized uniquely the Monte Carlo method. None quantified the economic impact of improved hearing on cognitive function.

Conclusions: The heterogeneity of sources impacted data quality. Unilateral and sequential bilateral CI appeared to be cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids or nontechnological support. When properly indicated, simultaneous bilateral CIs are cost-effective compared to no interventions and to unilateral cochlear implantation through differential discounting or variations from the base cases, especially with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer.

双侧重度至永久性听力损失成人人工耳蜗植入的经济分析。文献系统回顾。
目的确定双侧重度至极重度听力损失成人使用人工耳蜗(CI)的成本效益或成本效用:PubMed(Medline)、The Cochrane Library、Embase via Elsevier、EBSCOhost CINAHL 和 Scopus:研究对象包括患有严重至极重度双侧神经听力损失的成年参与者。分析内容包括生活质量改善、成本、成本效益、成本效用、成本效益、质量调整生命年 (QALY)、增量成本效益比 (ICER) 和增量成本效用比 (ICUR)。本文检索了 2010 年至 2023 年间用英语发表的系统综述、荟萃分析、系列病例以及前瞻性或回顾性队列研究。排除标准包括不完整的研究、摘要、临床病例、社论、信件、涉及儿童群体的研究、单侧耳聋、方法学研究、CI 的非经济方面、儿童和成人混合数据以及 2010 年之前发表的研究。根据 NICE 指南制定方法,按照经济评估质量评估附录 I 中列出的标准对偏倚风险进行了评估:结果:10 篇文章符合标准并被纳入定性综合研究。一项研究进行了前瞻性成本效用分析,一项研究进行了成本效益分析,一项研究是以成本效用为重点的随机对照临床试验,另一项研究是以成本效益为重点的临床试验。六项研究采用了马尔可夫模型,一项研究只采用了蒙特卡罗方法。没有一项研究量化了改善听力对认知功能的经济影响:数据来源的异质性影响了数据质量。与双侧助听器或非技术支持相比,单侧和连续双侧 CI 似乎具有成本效益。在适当的情况下,与不采取任何干预措施相比,以及与单侧人工耳蜗植入术相比,通过差额贴现或基础病例的变化,同步双侧人工耳蜗植入术具有成本效益,尤其是在预期寿命为 5-10 年或更长的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Otology & Neurotology
Otology & Neurotology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
509
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信