Abstract
Abstract
Objective
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated its eligibility criteria for unilateral cochlear implants (UCIs) in 2019. NICE claimed this would not impact the cost-effectiveness results used within its 2009 technology appraisal guidance. This claim is uncertain given changed clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness estimates of UCIs in UK adults with severe to profound hearing loss within the contemporary NHS environment.
Methods
A cost–utility analysis employing a Markov model was undertaken to compare UCIs with hearing aids or no hearing aids for people with severe to profound hearing loss. A clinical pathway was developed to estimate resource use. Health-related quality of life, potential adverse events, device upgrades and device failure were captured. Unit costs were derived mostly from the NHS data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis further assessed the effect of uncertain model inputs.
Results
A UCI is likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (£11,946/QALY) or no hearing aid (£10,499/QALY). A UCI has an 93.0% and 98.7% likelihood of being cost-effective within the UK adult population when compared to a hearing aid or no hearing aid, respectively. ICERs were mostly sensitive to the proportion of people eligible for cochlear implant, discount rate, surgery and device costs and processor upgrade cost.
Conclusion
UCIs remain cost-effective despite changes to clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Updating the NICE criteria to provide better access UCIs is projected to increase annual implants in adults and children by 70% and expenditure by £28.6 million within three years. This increased access to UCIs will further improve quality of life of recipients and overall social welfare.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference66 articles.
1. Action on Hearing Loss: Hearing Matters. Action on Hearing Loss, London (2017)
2. Kessler, D., Osberger, M., Boyle, P.: CLARION patient performance: an update on the adult and children’s clinical trials. Scand. Audiol. 26, 45–49 (1997)
3. Mawman, D., et al.: Trends and outcomes in the Manchester adult cochlear implant series. Clin. Otolaryngol. Allied Sci. 29(4), 331–339 (2004)
4. Parkinson, A., et al.: The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results. Ear Hear. 23(1), 41S-48S (2002)
5. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group: Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear. 25(4), 336–360 (2004)
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献