Piotr Henryk Skarzynski1,2,3,4,5, Katarzyna Ciesla6, Artur Lorens1, Joanna Wojcik6, Henryk Skarzynski7,8. 1. World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Kajetany/Warsaw. 2. Department of Teleaudiology and Screening, World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing. 3. Heart Failure and Cardiac Rehabilitation Department, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw. 4. Institute of Sensory Organs, Nadarzyn/Warsaw. 5. Center of Hearing and Speech Medincus, Kajetany, Poland. 6. Bioimaging Research Center, World Hearing Center of the Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw/Kajetany. 7. World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing. 8. Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Surgery Clinic, World Hearing Center.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop a Markov model and apply it for the evaluation of three different treatment scenarios for adult patients with severe to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Observational Study. SETTINGS: Hospital. PATIENTS: A clinical group of 22 adult patients (59.1% men, 40.9% women) aged from 59.13 ± 8.9 years were included in the study. The study comprised two arms: patients in group 1 received the second cochlear implant one to three months after the first implant; while patients in group 2 got the second cochlear implant approximately one year after the first implant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All participants were first asked to complete an AQoL-8D questionnaire. For the cost-effectiveness analyses, a Markov model analyzed as microsimulation was developed to compare the different treatment options. RESULTS: The analyses show that bilateral cochlear implantation strategies are cost-effective compared to the 'no treatment' alternative when having a 10-year model time horizon. When all three model scenarios are compared, the bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation strategy (Scenario 3) compared to the 'no treatment' option is even more cost-effective than the Scenarios 1 and 2, compared with the 'no treatment' alternative. CONCLUSIONS: The model results summarize that bilateral (sequential and simultaneous) cochlear implantation that are represented in the model scenarios, are cost-effective strategies for Polish adult patients with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop a Markov model and apply it for the evaluation of three different treatment scenarios for adult patients with severe to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Observational Study. SETTINGS: Hospital. PATIENTS: A clinical group of 22 adult patients (59.1% men, 40.9% women) aged from 59.13 ± 8.9 years were included in the study. The study comprised two arms: patients in group 1 received the second cochlear implant one to three months after the first implant; while patients in group 2 got the second cochlear implant approximately one year after the first implant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All participants were first asked to complete an AQoL-8D questionnaire. For the cost-effectiveness analyses, a Markov model analyzed as microsimulation was developed to compare the different treatment options. RESULTS: The analyses show that bilateral cochlear implantation strategies are cost-effective compared to the 'no treatment' alternative when having a 10-year model time horizon. When all three model scenarios are compared, the bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation strategy (Scenario 3) compared to the 'no treatment' option is even more cost-effective than the Scenarios 1 and 2, compared with the 'no treatment' alternative. CONCLUSIONS: The model results summarize that bilateral (sequential and simultaneous) cochlear implantation that are represented in the model scenarios, are cost-effective strategies for Polish adult patients with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.