Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of the Cochlear Osia System and Baha Attract System in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss or Single-Sided Deafness

Overview

Journal J Mark Access Health Policy

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Public Health

Date 2024 Mar 28

PMID 38544973

Authors

Matthias Brunner

Manjula Schou

Robert J Briggs

Dell Kingsford Smith

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of the active transcutaneous Osia System versus the passive transcutaneous Baha Attract System for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness in an Australian healthcare setting. In the absence of direct comparative evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of the clinical effectiveness and utility gains was needed. The ITC was informed by three studies identified through a systematic literature review. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Osia System. The literature review identified three studies suitable to inform an ITC: Mylanus et al. 2020 and Briggs et al. 2022 (Osia System) and den Besten et al. 2019 (Baha Attract System). The Osia System was found to be clinically superior to the Baha Attract System, across objective audiological outcomes resulting in a clinically meaningful utility benefit of 0.03 measured by the Health Utility Index with at least equivalent safety. In conclusion, the Osia System is more effective than the Baha Attract System, providing better hearing and health-related quality of life outcomes. In an Australian healthcare setting, the Osia System is cost-effective as demonstrated in a cost-utility analysis versus the Baha Attract System.

References

Magele A, Schoerg P, Stanek B, Gradl B, Sprinzl G . Active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019; 14(9):e0221484. PMC: 6746395. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221484. View

. Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2020; 20(1):1-165. PMC: 7080453. View

Amin N, Soulby A, Borsetto D, Pai I . Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge 601 versus percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices over a 5-year follow-up period. Clin Otolaryngol. 2020; 46(1):263-272. DOI: 10.1111/coa.13659. View

Kruyt I, Monksfield P, Skarzynski P, Green K, Runge C, Bosman A . Results of a 2-Year Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating Long-term Audiological and Clinical Outcomes of a Transcutaneous Implant for Bone Conduction Hearing. Otol Neurotol. 2020; 41(7):901-911. PMC: 7373438. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002689. View

den Besten C, Monksfield P, Bosman A, Skarzynski P, Green K, Runge C . Audiological and clinical outcomes of a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: Six-month results from a multicentre study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2018; 44(2):144-157. DOI: 10.1111/coa.13248. View

Kirkby-Strachan G, Que-Hee C . Implantable hearing devices - An update. Aust Fam Physician. 2016; 45(6):370-3. View

Crowson M, Tucci D . Mini Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Unilateral Osseointegrated Implants in Adults: Possibly Cost-Effective for the Correct Indication. Audiol Neurootol. 2016; 21(2):69-71. DOI: 10.1159/000443629. View

Wang S, Gum D, Merlin T . Comparing the ICERs in Medicine Reimbursement Submissions to NICE and PBAC-Does the Presence of an Explicit Threshold Affect the ICER Proposed?. Value Health. 2018; 21(8):938-943. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.017. View

Gawecki W, Gibasiewicz R, Marszal J, Blaszczyk M, Gawlowska M, Wierzbicka M . The evaluation of a surgery and the short-term benefits of a new active bone conduction hearing implant - the Osia®. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; 88(3):289-295. PMC: 9422383. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.05.021. View

10.

Mylanus E, Hua H, Wigren S, Arndt S, Skarzynski P, Telian S . Multicenter Clinical Investigation of a New Active Osseointegrated Steady-State Implant System. Otol Neurotol. 2020; 41(9):1249-1257. PMC: 7497889. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002794. View

11.

Chan K, Wallace C, Ho V, Wu C, Chen H, Chen Z . Simultaneous auricular reconstruction and transcutaneous bone conduction device implantation in patients with microtia. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019; 118(8):1202-1210. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2019.01.013. View

12.

Motlagh Zadeh L, Silbert N, Sternasty K, Swanepoel D, Hunter L, Moore D . Extended high-frequency hearing enhances speech perception in noise. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(47):23753-23759. PMC: 6876232. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1903315116. View

13.

Plontke S, Gotze G, Wenzel C, Rahne T, Mlynski R . Implantation of a new active bone conduction hearing device with optimized geometry. HNO. 2020; 68(Suppl 2):106-115. PMC: 7403170. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-020-00877-2. View

14.

Wiley T, Chappell R, Carmichael L, Nondahl D, Cruickshanks K . Changes in hearing thresholds over 10 years in older adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008; 19(4):281-92. PMC: 2802451. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19.4.2. View

15.

Briggs R, Birman C, Baulderstone N, Lewis A, Ng I, Ostblom A . Clinical Performance, Safety, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of an Active Osseointegrated Steady-State Implant System. Otol Neurotol. 2022; 43(7):827-834. PMC: 9348816. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003590. View

16.

Ueda C, Soares R, Jardim I, Bento R . Assessment Protocol for Candidates for Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022; 26(4):e718-e724. PMC: 9668427. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745734. View

17.

Drummond M . Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):344-9. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002088. View