Cost-Utility Analysis of Bilateral Cochlear Implants for Children With Severe-to-Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Taiwan.

Abstract

Objectives: Cochlear implants are an option for children with sensorineural hearing loss who do not benefit from hearing aids. Although bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) has been shown to enhance hearing performance and quality of life, its cost-effectiveness remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bilateral CI compared with bimodal hearing for children with sensorineural hearing loss in Taiwan from both the perspectives of patients and Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration (TNHIA).

Design: A four-state Markov model was utilized in the study, including "use the first internal device," "use the second internal device," "use the third internal device," and "death." Health utility values were obtained from a local survey of health professionals and then adjusted by a scale to reflect both the negative impact of aging on hearing and the time needed to develop the full benefit of treatment in the earliest years of life. The cost data were derived from a caregiver survey, hospital databases, clinical experts, and the TNHIA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated over the lifetime horizon and presented as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous bilateral CI, sequential bilateral CI, and bimodal hearing. In addition, one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of uncertainty and the robustness of the model.

Results: The base-case analysis showed that children with bilateral CI gained more QALYs while incurring more costs when compared with those with bimodal hearing. From the TNHIA perspective, compared with bimodal hearing, the ICER of simultaneous bilateral CI was New Taiwan Dollars 232,662 per QALY whereas from the patient perspective, the ICER was New Taiwan Dollars 1,006,965 per QALY. Moreover, simultaneous bilateral CI dominated sequential bilateral CI from both perspectives. Compared with bimodal hearing, the ICER of sequential bilateral CI did not exceed twice the gross domestic product per capita in Taiwan from either perspective. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the utility gain of bilateral CI compared with bimodal hearing was the most impactful parameter from both perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis results.

Conclusions: Our findings reveal that bilateral CI was cost-effective when using the threshold of one to three times the 2022 gross domestic product per capita in Taiwan from both the TNHIA and patient perspectives. Future research incorporating cost and effectiveness data from other dimensions is needed to help decision-makers assess the cost-effectiveness of bilateral CI more comprehensively.