Cost-effectiveness of Pediatric Unilateral/Bilateral Cochlear Implant in a Developing Country

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) for children suffering from bilateral profound SNHL.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cost benefit analysis study where quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the expenditure involved post unilateral and bilateral CI were calculated to assess the cost per QALY gained.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in a city of a developing country.

PATIENTS

A total of 59 patients were studied during the years 2015 to 2019 of which a study cohort of 29 patients underwent bilateral cochlear implantation and a control cohort of 30 patients received U/L CI but did not undergo B/L CI.

MAIN OUTCOME

The QALY parameters HUI3 and VAS when patient had no implant, post unilateral and bilateral CI were calculated along with the total lifelong expenditure involved. The outcomes improvement post CI was compared in the study and control groups. The discounted net cost per QALY gained was assessed and compared with the PCGDP of the country for cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

Significant QALY was gained post unilateral and bilateral CI and the expenditure for both was within the cost thresholds. The net costs per QALY gained post the discounting in unilateral and bilateral CI were found to be 1,345 US$ and 1,977 US$ respectively. The PCGDP (nominal) of India in 2018 was 2,016 US$. The cost involved per QALY gained was found to be lesser than the per capita GDP of India.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral CI was found to be highly cost effective with bilateral CI involving a little higher cost per QALY gained but well within the cost effectiveness threshold.

A short-term cost-utility analysis of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Denmark

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Insulin degludec is an insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action that exhibits less intra-patient variability in its glucose-lowering activity, and reduces nocturnal, overall, and severe hypoglycemia relative to insulin glargine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec relative to insulin glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2DBOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2DBB) in Denmark.

METHODS

A short-term (1 year) cost-utility model was developed to model insulin use, non-severe and severe hypoglycemia, and self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients using insulin degludec and insulin glargine from the perspective of a Danish healthcare payer. Where possible, data were derived from Danish patients with diabetes and meta-analyses of clinical trials comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for the two insulin regimens in each of the three diabetes populations.

RESULTS

Insulin degludec dominated insulin glargine (i.e. reduced costs while improving quality-adjusted life expectancy) in patients with T1D and patients with type 2 diabetes using a basal-only insulin regimen. In the T2DBB cohort, insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DKK 221,063 per QALY gained, which would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 (∼DKK 224,000) per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were most affected by changes in hypoglycemia rate ratio assumptions, but were broadly insensitive to changes in individual input parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec reduces incidence of hypoglycemia and improves quality-of-life in patients with diabetes. Over a 1-year time horizon, insulin degludec resulted in cost savings relative to insulin glargine in T1D and T2DBOT cohorts, while being cost-effective in T2DBB.

Dual-chamber pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome without atrioventricular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Bradycardia [resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute (b.p.m.)] can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart, such as sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrioventricular (AV) blocks. People suffering from bradycardia may present with palpitations, exercise intolerance and fainting. The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in people with SSS and no evidence of AV block.

DATA SOURCES

All databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) were searched from inception to June 2014.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out in accordance with the general principles published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual-chamber and single-chamber atrial pacemakers and economic evaluations were included. Pairwise meta-analysis was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.

RESULTS

Of 493 references, six RCTs were included in the review. The results were predominantly influenced by the largest trial DANPACE. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with a statistically significant reduction in reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.63] compared with single-chamber atrial pacing. The difference is primarily because of the development of AV block requiring upgrade to a dual-chamber device. The risk of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was also reduced with dual-chamber pacing compared with single-chamber atrial pacing (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference was found between the pacing modes for mortality, heart failure, stroke, chronic atrial fibrillation or quality of life. However, the risk of developing heart failure may vary with age and device. The de novo economic model shows that dual-chamber pacemakers are more expensive and more effective than single-chamber atrial devices, resulting in a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6506. The ICER remains below £20,000 in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, structural sensitivity analysis and most scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses. The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers. Results from an analysis based on age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years) and risk of heart failure indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers (i.e. are less expensive and more effective) in older patients, whereas dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by (i.e. more expensive and less effective) single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients. However, these results are based on a subgroup analysis and should be treated with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction, dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers. The risk of developing a complete AV block and the lack of tools to identify patients at high risk of developing the condition argue for the implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker programmed to minimise unnecessary ventricular pacing. However, considerations have to be made around the risk of developing heart failure, which may depend on age and device.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006708.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.