A K Cheng1, J K Niparko. 1. Listening Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21203-6402, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis of the cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE literature search, review of article bibliographies, and consultation with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported (1) data on adults (age > or = 18 years) with bilateral, postlingual, profound deafness; (2) a health-utility gain from cochlear implantation on a scale from 0.00 (death) to 1.00 (perfect health); (3) a cost-utility ratio in terms of dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); and (4) at least 1 conventional statistical parameter (ie, SD, 95% confidence interval [CI], or P value). DATA EXTRACTION: From each study, we extracted the number of subjects, study design, health-utility instrument used, health-utility associated with profound deafness, health-utility gain from cochlear implantation, cost-utility of cochlear implantation, and reported statistical parameters. DATA SYNTHESIS: Weighted averages were calculated using a statistical weight of 1 per variance. Pooling 9 reports (n = 619), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults without cochlear implants was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.52-0.56). Pooling 7 studies (n = 511), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults after cochlear implantation was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.82). This improvement of 0.26 in health-utility resulted in a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Profound deafness in adults results in a substantial health-utility loss. Over half of that loss is restored after cochlear implantation, yielding a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. This figure compares favorably with medical and surgical interventions that are commonly covered by third-party payers in the United States today.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis of the cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE literature search, review of article bibliographies, and consultation with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported (1) data on adults (age > or = 18 years) with bilateral, postlingual, profound deafness; (2) a health-utility gain from cochlear implantation on a scale from 0.00 (death) to 1.00 (perfect health); (3) a cost-utility ratio in terms of dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); and (4) at least 1 conventional statistical parameter (ie, SD, 95% confidence interval [CI], or P value). DATA EXTRACTION: From each study, we extracted the number of subjects, study design, health-utility instrument used, health-utility associated with profound deafness, health-utility gain from cochlear implantation, cost-utility of cochlear implantation, and reported statistical parameters. DATA SYNTHESIS: Weighted averages were calculated using a statistical weight of 1 per variance. Pooling 9 reports (n = 619), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults without cochlear implants was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.52-0.56). Pooling 7 studies (n = 511), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults after cochlear implantation was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.82). This improvement of 0.26 in health-utility resulted in a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Profound deafness in adults results in a substantial health-utility loss. Over half of that loss is restored after cochlear implantation, yielding a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. This figure compares favorably with medical and surgical interventions that are commonly covered by third-party payers in the United States today.
Authors: David Feeny; Nathalie Huguet; Bentson H McFarland; Mark S Kaplan; Heather Orpana; Elizabeth Eckstrom Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Andrea D Warner-Czyz; Betty Loy; Peter S Roland; Liyue Tong; Emily A Tobey Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: James H Clark; Nae-Yuh Wang; Anne W Riley; Christine M Carson; Rachel L Meserole; Frank R Lin; Laurie S Eisenberg; Emily A Tobey; Alexandra L Quittner; Howard W Francis; John K Niparko Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Ethan D Borre; Mohamed M Diab; Austin Ayer; Gloria Zhang; Susan D Emmett; Debara L Tucci; Blake S Wilson; Kamaria Kaalund; Osondu Ogbuoji; Gillian D Sanders Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-05-08