European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
The cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implantation in the Finnish health care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dietz Aarno, Seil Elizabeth, Linder Pia, Linnosmaa Ismo, Parkinson Bonny, Cutler Henry
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants (UCIs) for Finnish adults with severe to profound hearing loss within the contemporary Finnish healthcare system.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model to compare UCIs with hearing aids for adults with severe to profound hearing loss. We developed an average clinical pathway based on data from three Finnish university hospitals to estimate resource use. The model captured health-related quality of life, potential adverse events, device upgrades, and device failure. We estimated unit costs from national expert opinions and from grey and published literature. We performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate how uncertain model inputs affect the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
RESULTS: The ICER for UCIs compared to hearing aids in the Finnish adult population was €14,528 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated a 98,5% likelihood that UCIs are cost-effective compared to a €25,000 per QALY gained threshold. The ICER was most sensitive to the discount rate, UCI device and surgery costs, the utility increment from UCI treatment, costs associated with UCI fitting, and the cost and upgrade cycle of sound processors.
CONCLUSION: UCIs for adults are cost-effective within the Finnish healthcare setting. Our results align with ICER findings for UCIs in the UK and Swedish adult populations, despite differences in indications, clinical pathways, and device unit costs. All studies suggest that UCIs are more cost-effective when implemented at an earlier age, given the same level of hearing performance.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model to compare UCIs with hearing aids for adults with severe to profound hearing loss. We developed an average clinical pathway based on data from three Finnish university hospitals to estimate resource use. The model captured health-related quality of life, potential adverse events, device upgrades, and device failure. We estimated unit costs from national expert opinions and from grey and published literature. We performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate how uncertain model inputs affect the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
RESULTS: The ICER for UCIs compared to hearing aids in the Finnish adult population was €14,528 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated a 98,5% likelihood that UCIs are cost-effective compared to a €25,000 per QALY gained threshold. The ICER was most sensitive to the discount rate, UCI device and surgery costs, the utility increment from UCI treatment, costs associated with UCI fitting, and the cost and upgrade cycle of sound processors.
CONCLUSION: UCIs for adults are cost-effective within the Finnish healthcare setting. Our results align with ICER findings for UCIs in the UK and Swedish adult populations, despite differences in indications, clinical pathways, and device unit costs. All studies suggest that UCIs are more cost-effective when implemented at an earlier age, given the same level of hearing performance.