Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2021
Cost Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Dreyfuss Michael, Giat Yahel, Veraguth Dorothe, Röösli Christof, Huber Alexander M, Laske Roman D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI) for the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD).
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model.
SETTING: Adults with single-sided deafness in a high-income country.
INTERVENTION: Unilateral CI was compared with no intervention.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with different cost-effectiveness thresholds ($10,000 to $150,000) for different age, sex, and cost combinations. The calculations were based on the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), national life expectancy tables, and different cost settings. The health utility values for the QALY were either directly collected from published data, or, derived from published data using a regression model of multiple utility indices (regression estimate).
RESULTS: The regression estimate showed an increase of the health utility value from 0.62 to 0.74 for SSD patients who underwent CI. CI for SSD was cost effective for women up to 64 years ($50,000 per-QALY threshold), 80 years ($100,000 per-QALY threshold), and 86 years ($150,000 per-QALY threshold). For men, these values were 58, 77, and 84, respectively. Changing the discount rate by up to 5% further increased the cutoff ages up to 5 years. A detailed cost and age sensitivity analysis is presented and allows testing for cost effectiveness in local settings worldwide.
CONCLUSIONS: CI is a cost-effective option to treat patients with SSD.
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model.
SETTING: Adults with single-sided deafness in a high-income country.
INTERVENTION: Unilateral CI was compared with no intervention.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with different cost-effectiveness thresholds ($10,000 to $150,000) for different age, sex, and cost combinations. The calculations were based on the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), national life expectancy tables, and different cost settings. The health utility values for the QALY were either directly collected from published data, or, derived from published data using a regression model of multiple utility indices (regression estimate).
RESULTS: The regression estimate showed an increase of the health utility value from 0.62 to 0.74 for SSD patients who underwent CI. CI for SSD was cost effective for women up to 64 years ($50,000 per-QALY threshold), 80 years ($100,000 per-QALY threshold), and 86 years ($150,000 per-QALY threshold). For men, these values were 58, 77, and 84, respectively. Changing the discount rate by up to 5% further increased the cutoff ages up to 5 years. A detailed cost and age sensitivity analysis is presented and allows testing for cost effectiveness in local settings worldwide.
CONCLUSIONS: CI is a cost-effective option to treat patients with SSD.