Cost-Utility of Partially Implantable Active Middle Ear Implants for Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Decision Analysis

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Stapedectomy vs Hearing Aids in the Treatment of Otosclerosis

Importance

Otosclerosis can be managed through surgical treatment, such as stapedectomy, or through hearing amplification with hearing aids. To our knowledge, there has been no cost-effectiveness analysis of these 2 treatment methods.

Objective

To determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aid use for the treatment of otosclerosis.

Design and Setting

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision tree was built to model the treatment choices for otosclerosis. The tree was run as a Markov model of a case patient aged 30 years. The model spanned the patient's lifetime to determine total costs of management of otosclerosis with stapedectomy or hearing aids. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a willingness to pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A 2-way sensitivity analysis was performed for the cost of stapedectomy vs the cost of hearing aids. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the likelihood that stapedectomy would be cost-effective across a range of model inputs.

Interventions

Stapedectomy vs hearing aid use.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aids in the treatment of otosclerosis. The secondary objectives were to determine which factors are associated with the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

Results

Stapedectomy had an estimated lifetime cost of $19 417.95, while hearing aids had an average lifetime cost of $16 439.94. Stapedectomy also had a benefit of 16.58 QALYs, and hearing aids had a benefit of 15.82 QALYs. Stapedectomy increases lifetime costs by $2978.01, with a benefit of 0.76 QALYs compared with hearing aids. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for stapedectomy is $3918.43 per QALY. The model was sensitive to the cost of stapedectomy and the cost of stapedectomy revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that stapedectomy was cost-effective compared with hearing aids 99.98% of the time.

Conclusions and Relevance

Stapedectomy appears to be a cost-effective option for treating otosclerosis compared with hearing aid use, from the patient perspective.

Implantable Hearing Aids: Where are we in 2020?

Beginning in the late 20th century, implantable hearing aids were developed and used as an alternative for individuals who were unable to tolerate conventional hearing aids. Since that time, several devices have been developed, with four currently remaining on the international market (Med-el Vibrant Soundbridge, Envoy Esteem, Ototronix MAXUM, and Cochlear Carina). This review will briefly examine the history of middle ear implant development, describe current available devices, evaluate the benefits and limits of the technology, and consider the future directions of research in the field of implantable hearing aids.

A Transcutaneous Active Middle Ear Implant (AMEI) in Children and Adolescents: Long-term, Multicenter Results

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the long-term safety and performance of an active middle ear implant (AMEI) in the treatment of hearing loss in children and adolescents with a primary focus on improvement in speech discrimination.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, multicentric, single-subject repeated-measures design in which each subject serves as his or her own control.

SUBJECTS

Thirty-one pediatric subjects aged 5 to 17 years.

INTERVENTION

Implantation of an active middle ear implant.

METHODS

Improvement in word recognition scores, speech reception thresholds (SRT) in quiet and noise, in addition to air conduction, bone conduction, and sound field thresholds were evaluated in two age groups.

RESULTS

Residual hearing did not change over time and speech intelligibility significantly improved and remained stable after 36 months. Children aged 5 to 9 improved in WRS from 21.92 to 95.38% and in SRT in quiet and in noise respectively from 62.45 dB SPL (sound pressure level) and +1.14 dB SNR to 42.07 dB SPL and -4.45 dB SNR. Adolescents aged 10 to 17 improved in WRS from 12.78 to 84.71% and in SRT in quiet and in noise respectively from 63.96 dB SPL and +3.32 dB SNR to 35.31 dB SPL and -4.55 dB SNR.

CONCLUSIONS

The AMEI, under investigation, is a safe treatment for children and adolescents, and significantly improved audiological performance that remains stable on the long-term scale (up to 36 mo postimplantation). In general, all adult-related issues and questions regarding safety and performance can also be applied to the pediatric population, as no apparent specific issues developed.