Cochlear implantation as a treatment for single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a randomized controlled evaluation of cost-utility.

Q2 Medicine
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Pub Date : 2019-02-04 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s12901-019-0066-7
Mathieu Marx, Nadège Costa, Benoit Lepage, Soumia Taoui, Laurent Molinier, Olivier Deguine, Bernard Fraysse
{"title":"Cochlear implantation as a treatment for single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a randomized controlled evaluation of cost-utility.","authors":"Mathieu Marx, Nadège Costa, Benoit Lepage, Soumia Taoui, Laurent Molinier, Olivier Deguine, Bernard Fraysse","doi":"10.1186/s12901-019-0066-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have recently been proposed as a new indication for cochlear implantation. There is still no recommended treatment for these hearing deficits, and most options considered rely on the transfer of sound from the poor ear to the better ear, using Contralateral Routing of the Signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone conduction (BC) devices. In contrast, cochlear implantation allows the poor ear to be stimulated and binaural hearing abilities to be partially restored. Indeed, most recently published studies have reported an improvement in the spatial localisation of an incoming sound and better speech recognition in noisy environments after cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL subjects. It also provides consistent relief of tinnitus when associated. These encouraging hearing outcomes raise the question of the cost-utility of this expensive treatment in an extended indication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The final endpoint of this national multicentre study is to determine the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of cochlear implantation in comparison to the current standard of care in France through simple observation, using a randomised controlled trial. Firstly, the study comprises a prospective and descriptive part, where 150 SSD/AHL subjects try CROS hearing aids and a BC device for three weeks each. Secondly, the choice is made between CROS hearing aids, BC implanted device and cochlear implantation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are described after 6 months for the subjects who chose CROS, BC or declined any option. The subjects who opt for cochlear implantation are randomised between one group where the cochlear implant is inserted without delay and one group of simple initial observation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are compared after 6 months.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The present study was designed to assess the efficiency of cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL. A favourable cost-utility ratio in this extended indication would strengthen the promising clinical results and justify a reimbursement by the health insurance. The efficiency of other options (CROS, BC) will also be described.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This research has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), the 29th July 2014 under the n°NCT02204618.</p>","PeriodicalId":39843,"journal":{"name":"BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6362575/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12901-019-0066-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have recently been proposed as a new indication for cochlear implantation. There is still no recommended treatment for these hearing deficits, and most options considered rely on the transfer of sound from the poor ear to the better ear, using Contralateral Routing of the Signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone conduction (BC) devices. In contrast, cochlear implantation allows the poor ear to be stimulated and binaural hearing abilities to be partially restored. Indeed, most recently published studies have reported an improvement in the spatial localisation of an incoming sound and better speech recognition in noisy environments after cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL subjects. It also provides consistent relief of tinnitus when associated. These encouraging hearing outcomes raise the question of the cost-utility of this expensive treatment in an extended indication.

Methods: The final endpoint of this national multicentre study is to determine the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of cochlear implantation in comparison to the current standard of care in France through simple observation, using a randomised controlled trial. Firstly, the study comprises a prospective and descriptive part, where 150 SSD/AHL subjects try CROS hearing aids and a BC device for three weeks each. Secondly, the choice is made between CROS hearing aids, BC implanted device and cochlear implantation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are described after 6 months for the subjects who chose CROS, BC or declined any option. The subjects who opt for cochlear implantation are randomised between one group where the cochlear implant is inserted without delay and one group of simple initial observation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are compared after 6 months.

Discussion: The present study was designed to assess the efficiency of cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL. A favourable cost-utility ratio in this extended indication would strengthen the promising clinical results and justify a reimbursement by the health insurance. The efficiency of other options (CROS, BC) will also be described.

Trial registration: This research has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), the 29th July 2014 under the n°NCT02204618.

Abstract Image

人工耳蜗植入治疗单侧耳聋和不对称听力损失:成本效益随机对照评估。
背景:单侧耳聋(SSD)和不对称听力损失(AHL)最近被提出作为人工耳蜗植入的新适应症。对于这些听力损失,目前仍没有推荐的治疗方法,考虑的大多数方案都依赖于使用对侧信号路由(CROS)助听器或骨传导(BC)设备将声音从听力较差的耳朵传输到听力较好的耳朵。相比之下,人工耳蜗植入术可以刺激听力较差的耳朵,部分恢复双耳听力能力。事实上,最近发表的研究报告显示,在 SSD/AHL 受试者中植入人工耳蜗后,他们对传入声音的空间定位能力有所提高,在嘈杂环境中的语音识别能力也有所改善。如果伴有耳鸣,人工耳蜗还能持续缓解耳鸣。这些令人鼓舞的听力结果提出了一个问题,即这种昂贵的治疗方法在扩展适应症中的成本效益:这项全国性多中心研究的最终目的是通过随机对照试验进行简单观察,确定人工耳蜗植入与法国现行治疗标准相比的增量成本效用比(ICUR)。首先,研究包括前瞻性和描述性部分,150 名 SSD/AHL 受试者分别试用 CROS 助听器和 BC 设备三周。其次,受试者在 CROS 助听器、BC 植入设备和人工耳蜗植入之间做出选择。6 个月后,将对选择 CROS、BC 或拒绝任何选择的受试者的听力结果和生活质量进行测量。选择人工耳蜗植入的受试者被随机分为两组,一组是立即植入人工耳蜗,另一组是进行简单的初步观察。6个月后对听力结果和生活质量进行比较:本研究旨在评估 SSD/AHL 植入人工耳蜗的效率。在这一扩大的适应症中,如果成本效用比良好,则会加强临床结果的前景,并证明医疗保险的报销是合理的。此外,还将介绍其他方案(CROS、BC)的效率:本研究已于2014年7月29日在ClinicalTrials.gov(http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/)上注册,注册号为NCT02204618。
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
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of ear, nose and throat disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders (ISSN 1472-6815) is indexed/tracked/covered by PubMed, CAS, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar.
×
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