» Articles » PMID: 10555692

Cost-utility of the Cochlear Implant in Adults: a Meta-analysis

Overview
Date 1999 Nov 11
PMID 10555692
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Cochlear implantation impact on health service utilisation and social outcomes: a systematic review.

Bekele Okuba T, Lystad R, Boisvert I, McMaugh A, Cantle Moore R, Walsan R BMC Health Serv Res. 2023; 23(1):929.

PMID: 37649056 PMC: 10468908. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09900-y.


The Functional Hearing Gain with an Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant Does Not Correlate with the Subjective Hearing Performance.

Auinger A, Liepins R, Brkic F, Vyskocil E, Arnoldner C J Pers Med. 2022; 12(7).

PMID: 35887561 PMC: 9321828. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12071064.


Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review.

Borre E, Diab M, Ayer A, Zhang G, Emmett S, Tucci D EClinicalMedicine. 2021; 35:100872.

PMID: 34027332 PMC: 8129894. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100872.


Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process.

Redmann A, Tawfik K, Hammer T, Wenstrup L, Stevens S, Breen J Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2021; 6(2):320-324.

PMID: 33869764 PMC: 8035943. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.546.


Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Newborn Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection in China Using a Markov Model.

Chen K, Zhong Y, Gu Y, Sharma R, Li M, Zhou J JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(12):e2023949.

PMID: 33275150 PMC: 7718603. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.23949.