Age Dependent Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation in Adults. Is There an Age Related Cut-off?

Cochlear implant cost analysis in adults: a European narrative review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to provide an updated European narrative review spanning the last decade, focusing on the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants (CIs) for adults with severe to profound post-lingual hearing loss.

METHODS

This review encompasses both prospective and retrospective approaches, as well as cross-sectional and longitudinal trials conducted on CIs in adults. All studies related to European countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and Poland) were conducted in English and were published between 2012 and June 2023.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the analysis. The patients' ages ranged from 18 years to over 67 years, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 100 patients; two of these studies were focused on single-sided deafness in adults. The Markov model was identified as the most commonly utilized analysis method.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a general consensus on CI cost-effectiveness, despite substantial variability among countries in factors such as observation time horizons, cost-effectiveness thresholds, methods of cost collection, discount rates, CI eligibility criteria and country-specific health systems. Generally, CIs yield positive societal benefits for working-age individuals, potentially less for seniors. Early unilateral CI enhances cost-effectiveness, highlighting the importance of prompt candidate identification. A consistent undersupply of CIs relative to the percentage of potential recipients emerged across countries. Therefore, further investigation into subcategories such as single-sided deafness is warranted, along with country-specific cost analyses. Emphasizing the significance of detailed information on health systems and associated costs and benefits is crucial for facilitating comparisons across different settings.

Economic Analysis of Cochlear Implants in Adults With Bilateral Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss. A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of cochlear implants (CI) in adults with severe to profound bilateral hearing loss.

DATABASES REVIEWED

PubMed (Medline), The Cochrane Library, Embase via Elsevier, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Scopus.

METHODS

The study included adult participants with severe to profound bilateral neurosensory hearing loss. The analysis encompassed quality of life improvements, costs, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, and prospective or retrospective cohort studies published in English between 2010 and 2023 were retrieved. Exclusion criteria included incomplete studies, abstracts, clinical cases, editorials, letters, studies involving pediatric populations, single-side deafness, methodology research, noneconomic aspects of CI, mixed child and adult data, and studies published before 2010. The risk of bias was assessed following the criteria outlined in Appendix I of the economic evaluation's quality assessment as per the NICE Guideline Development Method.

RESULTS

Ten articles met the criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. One study conducted a prospective cost-utility analyses, one carried out a cost-benefit analyses, one was a randomized controlled clinical trial focusing on cost-utility, and another was a clinical trial addressing cost-effectiveness. Six studies employed Markov models, and one study utilized uniquely the Monte Carlo method. None quantified the economic impact of improved hearing on cognitive function.

CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneity of sources impacted data quality. Unilateral and sequential bilateral CI appeared to be cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids or nontechnological support. When properly indicated, simultaneous bilateral CIs are cost-effective compared to no interventions and to unilateral cochlear implantation through differential discounting or variations from the base cases, especially with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer.

A country-wide health policy in Chile for deaf adults using cochlear implants: Analysis of health determinants and social impacts

BACKGROUND

Post-lingual deafness represents a critical challenge for adults' well-being with substantial public health burdens. One treatment of choice has been cochlear implants (CI) for people with severe to profound hearing loss (HL). Since 2018, Chile has implemented a high-cost policy to cover CI treatment, the "Ley Ricarte Soto" (LRS) health policy. However, wide variability exists in the use of this device. To date, no related study has been published on policy evaluation in Chile or other Latin American countries.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the LRS policy on the treatment success and labour market inclusion among deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) adults using CI. We examined and characterised outcomes based on self-reports about treatment success and occupation status between 2018 and 2020.

DESIGN

We performed a prospective study using hospital clinical records and an online questionnaire with 76 DHH adults aged >15 who had received CIs since the introduction of the LRS policy in 2018. Using univariate and multivariate regression models, we investigated the relationship between demographic, audiological, and social determinants of health and outcomes, including treatment success for social inclusion (International Outcome inventory for Hearing Aids and CIs assessment: IOI-HA) and occupation status for labour market inclusion.

RESULTS

Our study showed elevated levels of treatment success in most of the seven sub-scores of the IOI-HA assessment. Similarly, around 70% of participants maintained or improved their occupations after receiving their CI. We found a significant positive association between treatment success and market inclusion. Participants diagnosed at younger ages had better results than older participants in both outcomes. Regarding social determinants of health, findings suggested participants with high social health insurance and a shorter commute time to the clinic had better results in treatment success. For labour market inclusion, participants with high education levels and better pre- CI occupation had better post-CI occupation status.

CONCLUSIONS

In evaluating the LRS policy for providing CIs for DHH adults in Chile, we found positive effects relating to treatment success and occupation status. Our study supports the importance of age at diagnosis and social determinants of health, which should be assessed by integrating public services and bringing them geographically closer to each beneficiary. Although evidence-based guidelines for candidate selection given by the LRS policy might contribute to good results, these guidelines could limit the policy access to people who do not meet the requirements of the guidelines due to social inequalities.

Satisfaction and quality of life in cochlear implant users with long sensory deprivation

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to verify the level of satisfaction of CI users with long periods of hearing deprivation, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of the use of the device and their quality of life.

METHODS

This is a analytical research, of the type observational cross-sectional study. The study was performed with 24 patients from a private Institute of Otorhinolaryngology. Three surveys were applied: Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), International Outcome Inventory - Cochlear Implant (IOI - CI) to assess cochlear implant satisfaction and WHOQOL- bref to assess the quality of life. The results in the pre and post lingual groups were compared.

RESULTS

The highest degree of satisfaction was reported with regard to personal image, positive effects, and how the users feel about their CI. The lowest degree of satisfaction was reported regarding the cost-benefit of the CI and the competitive noise. In the WHOQOL-bref assessment, the highest scores were found in physical, psychological and social relations domains. When comparing the results of the surveys, the pre and post-lingual groups showed no difference in relation to the achieved scores.

CONCLUSION

The participants had a high level of satisfaction with the use of cochlear implants. The longer the sensory deprivation time, the greater the degree of satisfaction with the device. The use of the CI electronic device reflects on the individual's quality of life.

The Impact of Surgical Expertise on the Cost-Effectiveness of Stapes Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Otosclerosis is the primary cause of conductive hearing loss with normal otoscopy. As the condition worsens, certain patients may develop a sensorineural component. Patients with successful surgeries may still need hearing aids, which creates a dilemma for health professionals as there are insufficient data to make informed decisions. This study investigated the influence of the surgeon's proficiency level, individual patient factors (e.g., age at the time of intervention and survival rates), and surgery costs on the cost-effectiveness of stapes surgery.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using an adapted Markov model incorporating annual all-cause mortalities. In addition, we introduced sensitivity analyses to address the effects of surgical expertise on adults with bilateral conductive hearing loss due to otosclerosis. A model was developed based on a decision tree with treatment options and complication scenarios for otosclerosis patients undergoing stapes surgery or receiving hearing aids. Annual all-cause mortality was considered. A sensitivity analysis was performed assigned to different training levels ("experts" and "less experienced") to simulate the effects of surgical experience on the cost-effectiveness of surgical outcomes. Successful surgery was defined as closing of the air-bone gap to 10 dB or less. Based on published data, "experts" were simulated with a 93.7% success rate, and "less experienced" were manufactured with a 68.9% success rate.

RESULTS

Stapes surgery provides improved quality of life (QoL) compared to hearing aids with lower cumulative costs up to 87 years of age in the case of "expert" surgeons and up to 78 years of age, when performed by "less experienced" surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary stapes surgery is highly cost-effective and delivers improved QoL compared to hearing aids with lower cumulative costs. Additionally, undergoing stapes surgical training remains highly cost-effective.

Do Not Go Gentle into That Deaf Night: A Holistic Perspective on Cochlear Implant Use as Part of Healthy Aging

Research suggests that cochlear implant (CI) use in elderly people improves speech perception and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). CI provision could also prevent dementia and other comorbidities and support healthy aging. The aim of this study was (1) to prospectively investigate potential changes in HRQOL and speech perception and (2) to identify clinical action points to improve CI treatment. Participants (n = 45) were CI recipients aged 60-90 with postlingual deafness. They were divided into groups, according to age: Group 1 (n = 20) received a CI between the age of 60-70 years; group 2 (n = 25) between the age of 71-90 years. HRQOL and speech perception were assessed preoperatively, and three and twelve months postoperatively. HRQOL and speech perception increased significantly within one year postoperatively in both groups. No difference between groups was found. We conclude that CI treatment improves speech perception and HRQOL in elderly users. Improvement of the referral process for CI treatment and a holistic approach when discussing CI treatment in the elderly population could prevent auditory deprivation and the deterioration of cognitive abilities.

Self-Identified Patient Barriers to Pursuit of Cochlear Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Cochlear implantation (CI) is an underutilized treatment for hearing loss in the United States for reasons which remain unclear. This study explores self-identified barriers to CI employing a survey of adults who qualified for CI.

METHODS

A single-institutional review of CI candidates between December 2010 and December 2018 was performed to identify patients who did not pursue surgery. A 21-question survey was developed, aimed at rating patients' concerns regarding CI, including surgical risks, adaptation, costs, time commitment, loss of residual hearing, and lack of benefit, among others. Current hearing aid usage and familiarity with other CI users were also analyzed. The survey was administered to patients who did not pursue CI and a control group who eventually did pursue CI, via email or telephone.

RESULTS

There were 199 patients who initially did not pursue CI. Fifty-two survey responses were received, comprised of 27 patients who did not pursue CI and 25 patients who did. A belief that CI would not significantly improve the ability to communicate was the most common reported barrier, followed by the postoperative recovery process, risks of surgery, and risks of losing music appreciation. Anesthetic risk and cost were the least important reasons not to pursue CI. Half of patients reported concerns regarding the period of adjustment with the CI.

CONCLUSION

The decision not to pursue CI despite eligibility is multifactorial and includes concern for minimal hearing benefit and perioperative risks. These factors should be taken into consideration when counseling patients on CI surgery.

Cost Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness

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.

Racial Disparities in Adult Cochlear Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of cochlear implant referral and cochlear implantation across different races and to compare audiometric profiles of these patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Academic tertiary care institution.

METHODS

Demographic and audiometric data were collected for patients who underwent cochlear implant evaluation or cochlear implantation from 2010 to 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 504 patients underwent cochlear implant evaluation; 388 met cochlear implant candidacy criteria, and 258 underwent implantation. Of the patients referred for cochlear implant evaluation, 68.5% were White, 18.5% were Black, and 12.3% were Asian, while the institution's primary service area is 46.9% White, 42.3% Black, and 7.7% Asian (P < .001). Black patients referred for cochlear implant evaluation had significantly worse hearing (mean pure-tone average [PTA] 84.5 dB, 26.1% word recognition) than White patients (mean PTA 78.2 dB, P = .005; 35.7% word recognition, P = .015) and Asians patients (mean PTA 77.9 dB, P = .04; 36.5% word recognition, P = .04). Black patients who underwent cochlear implant evaluation also had significantly worse AzBio scores than White patients: 24.5% versus 36.7% (P = .003). There was no significant difference in cochlear implantation rates between Black and White candidates (P = .06).

CONCLUSION

Black patients undergo cochlear implant evaluation and cochlear implantation at rates disproportionately lower than expected based on local demographics. In addition, Black patients have significantly worse hearing at the time of cochlear implant referral than White and Asian patients. Identifying and increasing awareness of these disparities are essential steps to improving cochlear implant access for potentially disadvantaged populations.

Hearing Outcomes and Complications of Cochlear Implantation in Elderly Patients over 75 Years of Age

Objective: Populations are aging in many countries, and the proportion of elderly people with severe to profound hearing loss is increasing in parallel with the increasing average life span. The objective of this study was to investigate the outcomes of cochlear implant (CI) surgery in elderly patients compared to those in younger patients. Methods: The outcomes of CI surgery were retrospectively investigated for 81 adults (32 men and 49 women) who underwent CI surgery at our hospital. They were divided according to age at the time of implantation into the younger group (<75 years of age; n = 49) or elderly group (≥75 years of age; n = 32). Results: The mean sentence recognition score on the CI-2004 Japanese open-set test battery (±standard deviation) was 82.9% ± 24.1 in the younger group and 81.9% ± 23.2 in the elderly group, with no significant difference between the groups (Mann–Whitney U test). The incidence of major complications that required surgical treatment was not significantly different between the groups (4.1% vs. 6.2%, respectively). Thus, there were no severe complications that could affect general health status in either group. Three patients in each group died for reasons unrelated to CI surgery during follow-up. The proportion of patients who were alive and continued to use the CI five years after surgery was 92.8% and 91.5%, respectively. Conclusion: Our results show good speech recognition and a low incidence of major complications in elderly patients. This comprehensive report on the outcomes of CI surgery in elderly patients will be helpful to the elderly with severe to profound hearing loss when deciding whether to undergo CI surgery.

Cost-utility Analysis of Cochlear Implantation in Adults With Single-sided Deafness: Austrian and German Perspective

BACKGROUND

Single-sided deafness (SSD) is associated with a loss of binaural hearing. Major limitations of such patients are poor speech understanding in noisy environments and a lack of spatial hearing. To date, cochlear implantation is the most promising approach to overcome these deficits in this group of patients.

OBJECTIVE

Cost-effectiveness analyses of cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness. The model targets Austrian and German SSD patients who can either opt for treatment with a cochlear implant (CI) or decide against a CI and stay without any treatment.

METHODS

A Markov model analyzed as microsimulation was developed using TreeAge Pro 2019 software. Pre- and postoperative utility values generated with HUI-3 were used to populate the model. Costs covered by the national insurance were considered. Costs and utilities were discounted by 3%. A model time horizon of 20 years was set.

RESULTS

According to Austrian base-case analysis, the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €34845.2 per quality-adjusted life year gained when comparing the "CI strategy" to the "no treatment strategy." The ICUR is marginally lower when adapting a German cost perspective-it was €31601.25 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the cost-effectiveness results are stable. Analyses also showed that the longer the time horizon is set, the more favorable the cost-effectiveness result is.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on currently available data, the Markov microsimulation model suggests that cochlear implantation is cost-effective in Austrian and German patients with SSD if no other treatment option is considered within the model.

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.

Cochlear Implantation

BACKGROUND

Hearing impairment that is too severe to be adequately treated with conventional hearing aids can lead, in children, to severe developmental disturbances of hearing and language, and, in adults, to communicative and social deprivation. Recent advances in medical device technology and in microsurgical techniques have led to an expansion of the indications for cochlear implantation (CI) for adults with progressive hearing loss in older age, and to a restructuring of the process of care for these patients in Germany.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, as well as on the CI guidelines and CI "white book" of the German Society of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery.

RESULTS

Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for the successful auditory rehabilitation of high-grade hearing impairment. In children, a key role is played by newborn auditory screening, which is mandatory in Germany and enables the provision of a CI in the first year of life when necessary. 86% of the children receiving a CI achieve linguistic comprehension of fluently spoken sentences. For adults, positive prognostic factors for hearing after the provision of a CI include a highly motivated patient, "postlingual" onset of the hearing impairment (i.e., after the acquisition of language), and a brief duration of deafness. Auditory rehabilitation is associated with significant improvement, not just of hearing and of the comprehension of spoken language, but also of quality of life, particularly in elderly patients. For patients of any age with bilateral hearing loss, CIs should be provided on both sides, if possible. The more common complications of the procedure, with a probability of 2-4% each, are technical implant defects, dizziness, and wound-healing disturbances.

CONCLUSION

Cochlear implantation, performed in specialized centers, is a safe and reliable technique and regularly enables the successful rehabilitation of hearing in both children and adults.

Systematic Review of Quality of Life Assessments after Cochlear Implantation in Older Adults

Cochlear implants (CI) have increasingly been adopted in older adults with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss as a result of the growing and aging world population. Consequently, researchers have recently shown great interest in the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation and its effect on quality of life (QoL) in older CI users. Therefore, a systematic review and critical evaluation of the available literature on QoL in older adult CI users was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were selected by searching MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Cochrane Library and by checking the reference lists of relevant articles. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the study sample were adults aged 50 years and older with postlingual onset of bilateral severe to profound hearing loss, (2) all subjects received a multi-electrode CI, and (3) QoL was assessed before and after implantation. Out of 1,093 records, 18 articles were accepted for review. Several studies demonstrated significant positive effects of cochlear implantation on QoL in older adults, but high-level evidence-based medicine is lacking. An improvement of QoL was generally reported when using disease-specific instruments, which are designed to detect treatment-specific changes, whereas the outcomes of generic QoL questionnaires, assessing general health states, were rather ambiguous. However, only generic questionnaires would be able to provide calculations of the cost-effectiveness of CI and comparisons across patient populations, diseases, or interventions. Hence, generic and disease-specific QoL instruments are complementary rather than contradictory. In general, older CI users' QoL was assessed using a variety of methods and instruments, which complicated comparisons between studies. There is a need for a standardized, multidimensional, and comprehensive QoL study protocol including all relevant generic and disease-specific instruments to measure and compare QoL, utility, and/or daily life performance in CI users.