Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2019
Age Dependent Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation in Adults. Is There an Age Related Cut-off?
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.
Laske Roman D, Dreyfuss Michael, Stulman Alan, Veraguth Dorothe, Huber Alexander M, Röösli Christof
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of age at implantation on the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI).
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model.
SETTING: Adults with profound postlingual hearing loss in a "high income" country.
INTERVENTION: Unilateral and sequential CI were compared with hearing aids (HA).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated as costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in CHF/QALY), for individual age and sex combinations in relation to two different willingness to pay thresholds. 1 CHF (Swiss franc) is equivalent to 1.01 USD.
RESULTS: When a threshold of 50,000 CHF per QALY is applied, unilateral CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 91 for women and 89 for men. Sequential CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 87 for women and 85 for men. If a more contemporary threshold of 100,000 CHF per QALY is applied, sequential CI in comparison to unilateral CI is cost-effective up to an age of 80 for women and 78 for men.
CONCLUSIONS: Performing both sequential and unilateral CI is cost-effective up to very advanced ages when compared with hearing aids.
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model.
SETTING: Adults with profound postlingual hearing loss in a "high income" country.
INTERVENTION: Unilateral and sequential CI were compared with hearing aids (HA).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated as costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in CHF/QALY), for individual age and sex combinations in relation to two different willingness to pay thresholds. 1 CHF (Swiss franc) is equivalent to 1.01 USD.
RESULTS: When a threshold of 50,000 CHF per QALY is applied, unilateral CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 91 for women and 89 for men. Sequential CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 87 for women and 85 for men. If a more contemporary threshold of 100,000 CHF per QALY is applied, sequential CI in comparison to unilateral CI is cost-effective up to an age of 80 for women and 78 for men.
CONCLUSIONS: Performing both sequential and unilateral CI is cost-effective up to very advanced ages when compared with hearing aids.