The Cost-Effectiveness of Different Hearing Screening Strategies for 50- to 70-Year-Old Adults: A Markov Model

Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA

BACKGROUND

While 60% of older adults have hearing loss (HL), the majority have never had their hearing tested.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate long-term clinical and economic effects of alternative adult hearing screening schedules in the USA.

DESIGN

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis simulating Current Detection (CD) and linkage of persons with HL to hearing healthcare, compared to alternative screening schedules varying by age at first screen (45 to 75 years) and screening frequency (every 1 or 5 years). Simulated persons experience yearly age- and sex-specific probabilities of acquiring HL, and subsequent hearing aid uptake (0.5-8%/year) and discontinuation (13-4%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated according to hearing level and treatment status. Costs from a health system perspective include screening ($30-120; 2020 USD), HL diagnosis ($300), and hearing aid devices ($3690 year 1, $910/subsequent year). Data sources were published estimates from NHANES and clinical trials of adult hearing screening.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-year-old persons in US primary care across their lifetime.

INTERVENTION

Alternative screening schedules that increase baseline probabilities of hearing aid uptake (base-case 1.62-fold; range 1.05-2.25-fold).

MAIN MEASURES

Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/year) costs and QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

KEY RESULTS

CD resulted in 1.20 average person-years of hearing aid use compared to 1.27-1.68 with the screening schedules. Lifetime total per-person undiscounted costs were $3300 for CD and ranged from $3630 for 5-yearly screening beginning at age 75 to $6490 for yearly screening beginning at age 45. In cost-effectiveness analysis, yearly screening beginning at ages 75, 65, and 55 years had ICERs of $39,100/QALY, $48,900/QALY, and $96,900/QALY, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variations in hearing aid utility benefit and screening effectiveness.

LIMITATION

Input uncertainty around screening effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

We project that yearly hearing screening beginning at age 55+ is cost-effective by US standards.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office.

METHODS

Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

Early Health Economic Modeling of Novel Therapeutics in Age-Related Hearing Loss

Background

Health systems face challenges to accelerate access to innovations that add value and avoid those unlikely to do so. This is very timely to the field of age-related sensorineural hearing loss (ARHL), where a significant unmet market need has been identified and sizeable investments made to promote the development of novel hearing therapeutics (NT). This study aims to apply health economic modeling to inform the development of cost-effective NT.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the potential costs and effects of using regenerative NT in patients ≥50 with ARHL. This was compared to the current standard of care including hearing aids and cochlear implants. Input data was collected from systematic literature searches and expert opinion. A UK NHS healthcare perspective was adopted. Three different but related analyses were performed using probabilistic modeling: (1) headroom analysis, (2) scenario analyses, and (3) threshold analyses.

Results

The headroom analysis shows an incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of £20,017[£11,299–£28,737] compared to the standard of care due to quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gains and cost savings. Higher therapeutic efficacy and access for patients with all degrees of hearing loss yields higher iNMBs. Threshold analyses shows that the ceiling price of the therapeutic increases with more severe degrees of hearing loss.

Conclusion

NT for ARHL are potentially cost-effective under current willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds with considerable room for improvement in the current standard of care pathway. Our model can be used to help decision makers decide which therapeutics represent value for money and are worth commissioning, thereby paving the way for urgently needed NT.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hearing Screening in Older Adults: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Age is the most common predictor of hearing loss; however, many older adults are not screened. Hearing screening could improve healthcare access, participation, and outcomes. Establishing whether hearing screening in older adults is cost-effective could improve the availability and utilization of screening.

METHODS

We searched nine databases in January 2020. Studies with populations aged 50+ and provided data on the cost-effectiveness of hearing screening were included in the review.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria and all found hearing screening programs to be cost-effective compared to no hearing screening, regardless of screening method (i.e., instrument or strategy). The maximum number of repeated screenings, coupled with younger ages, was most cost-effective.

DISCUSSION

This review suggests that hearing screening in older adults is cost-effective, however, the evidence is limited. There is pressing need for research focused on economic impacts of hearing healthcare in older adults to inform research, policy and practice.

Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is a common and costly medical condition. This systematic review sought to identify evidence gaps in published model-based economic analyses addressing hearing loss to inform model development for an ongoing Lancet Commission.

METHODS

We searched the published literature through 14 June 2020 and our inclusion criteria included decision model-based cost-effectiveness analyses that addressed diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of hearing loss. Two investigators screened articles for inclusion at the title, abstract, and full-text levels. Data were abstracted and the studies were assessed for the qualities of model structure, data assumptions, and reporting using a previously published quality scale.

FINDINGS

Of 1437 articles identified by our search, 117 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these model-based analyses were set in high-income countries (n = 96, 82%). The evaluated interventions were hearing screening (n = 35, 30%), cochlear implantation (n = 34, 29%), hearing aid use (n = 28, 24%), vaccination (n = 22, 19%), and other interventions (n = 29, 25%); some studies included multiple interventions. Eighty-six studies reported the main outcome in quality-adjusted or disability-adjusted life-years, 24 of which derived their own utility values. The majority of the studies used decision tree (n = 72, 62%) or Markov (n = 41, 35%) models. Forty-one studies (35%) incorporated indirect economic effects. The median quality rating was 92/100 (IQR:72-100).

INTERPRETATION

The review identified a large body of literature exploring the economic efficiency of hearing healthcare interventions. However, gaps in evidence remain in evaluation of hearing healthcare in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in investigating interventions across the lifespan. Additionally, considerable uncertainty remains around productivity benefits of hearing healthcare interventions as well as utility values for hearing-assisted health states. Future economic evaluations could address these limitations.

FUNDING

NCATS 3UL1-TR002553-03S3.

The Potential Added Value of Novel Hearing Therapeutics: An Early Health Economic Model for Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

To construct an early health economic model to assess the potential added value of novel hearing therapeutics, compared with the current standard of care. We use idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) as a case example, because it is a lead indication for several emerging hearing therapeutics.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed to assess the costs and effects of using novel hearing therapeutics for patients with ISSNHL. This was compared to the current standard of care. Input data were derived from literature searches and expert opinion. The study adopted a healthcare perspective of the UK National Health Service. Four analyses were conducted: 1) headroom, 2) scenario, 3) threshold, 4) sensitivity.

RESULTS

The decision analytic model showed that novel therapeutics for ISSNHL have potential value both in terms of improved patient outcomes, as well as incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB). The base case analysis revealed an iNMB of £39,032 for novel therapeutics compared with the current standard of care. Results of the threshold and scenario analysis revealed that age of treatment and severity of ISSNHL are major determinants of iNMB for novel therapeutics.

CONCLUSION

This article describes the first health economic model for novel therapeutics for hearing loss; and shows that novel hearing therapeutics can be cost-effective under NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold, with considerable room for improvement in the current standard of care. Our model can be used to inform the development of cost-effective hearing therapeutics; and help decision makers decide which therapeutics represent value for money.

Modeling-Based Assessment of 3D Printing-Enabled Meniscus Transplantation

3D printing technology is able to produce personalized artificial substitutes for patients with damaged menisci. However, there is a lack of thorough understanding of 3D printing-enabled (3DP-enabled) meniscus transplantation and its long-term advantages over traditional transplantation. To help health care stakeholders and patients assess the value of 3DP-enabled meniscus transplantation, this study compares the long-term cost and risk of this new paradigm with traditional transplantation by simulation. Pathway models are developed to simulate patients' treatment process during a 20-year period, and a Markov process is used to model the state transitions of patients after transplantation. A sensitivity analysis is also conducted to show the effect of quality of 3D-printed meniscus on model outputs. The simulation results suggest that the performance of 3DP-enabled meniscus transplantation depends on quality of 3D-printed meniscus. The conclusion of this study is that 3DP-enabled meniscus transplantation has many advantages over traditional meniscus transplantation, including a minimal waiting time, perfect size and shape match, and potentially lower cost and risk in the long term.

Reliability of the Home Hearing Test: Implications for Public Health

BACKGROUND

The projected increase in the aging population raises concerns about how to manage the health-care needs in a cost-effective way. Within hearing health care, there are presently too few audiologists to meet the expected demand, and training more professionals may not be a feasible way of addressing this problem. For this reason, there is a need to develop different ways of assessing hearing sensitivity that can be conducted accurately and inexpensively when a certified audiologist and/or sound-attenuated booth is unavailable. More specifically, there is a need to determine if the Etymotic Home Hearing Test (HHT) can yield accurate and reliable data from older adults with varying degrees of hearing loss.

PURPOSE

To compare audiometric thresholds obtained using the HHT, an automated pure-tone air-conduction test, to those obtained using manual audiometry (MA), among older adults with varying degrees of hearing loss.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 112 English-speaking adults (58% Female), aged 60 yr and older. Participants were excluded from this study if otoscopy revealed cerumen impaction and/or suspected ear pathology.

INTERVENTION

All participants completed the HHT on tablet computers in a carpeted classroom and MA in a double-walled sound-attenuated booth using insert earphones for both measures. Both measures were completed in the same test session, and the order of testing (MA versus HHT) was counterbalanced.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Absolute differences in threshold measurements (in dB HL) were calculated across all ears (n = 224 ears) and for all frequencies (octave frequencies from 0.5 to 8 kHz). Correlation and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to determine if thresholds obtained using the HHT significantly correlated with thresholds using MA. Mean thresholds for each method (HHT and MA) were compared using correlation analyses for each test frequency. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between the four-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) (average threshold at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) in the better-hearing ear measured using the HHT and a set of seven independent factors: four-frequency PTA in the better-hearing ear measured via MA, treatment group (HHT versus MA), age, gender, and degree of hearing loss (mild, moderate, and >moderate).

RESULTS

Correlation analyses revealed significant frequency-specific correlations, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 (p < 0.001), for air-conduction thresholds obtained using the HHT and MA. Mean HHT thresholds were significantly correlated with mean MA thresholds in both ears across the frequency range. This relationship held true across different degrees of hearing loss. The regression model accounted for a significant amount of variance in the HHT better-ear PTA, with MA better-ear PTA being the only significant predictor in our final model, with no effect of degree of loss, age, or gender.

CONCLUSIONS

The HHT is an accurate and cost-effective method of establishing pure-tone air-conduction thresholds, when compared with MA. Therefore, the HHT can be used as a tool to acquire accurate air-conduction hearing thresholds from older adults, in-group settings, without the use of a sound-attenuated booth or a certified audiologist.

Access to Health Care and Hearing Evaluation in US Adults

Objectives:

To explore self-reported hearing testing access for adults in a nationally representative survey.

Methods:

Demographic and audiologic adult survey respondent variables in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database 2011-2012 cohort were examined. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results:

In all, 5864 adult respondents were analyzed. Two-thirds (65.6%) of respondents reported having hearing tested 10 or more years ago or never tested at all. Male gender (OR = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.31-3.94), having a health care visit less than 3 years ago (OR = 8.19; 95% CI, 2.09-32.2), and having health insurance (OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.08-2.77) were significantly associated with respondents reporting having a hearing test less than 10 years ago. Mexican American race (OR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.83) and respondent age 40 to 59 (OR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81) were significantly associated with respondents reporting having a hearing test 10 or more years prior or never.

Conclusion:

A significant proportion of the adult population reports having hearing tested 10 or more years prior or never at all. Effort will be required to identify adults who have hearing loss and may benefit from auditory rehabilitation such as hearing aids or the cochlear implant.