Cost‐effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in Spain

• Published in: The Laryngoscope 2017-12, Vol.127 (12), p.2866-2872
• Main Authors: Pérez‐Martín, Jorge, Artaso, Miguel A., Díez, Francisco J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bilateral cochlear implantation; Cochlear Implantation - economics; Cochlear implants; Cost analysis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; cost‐effectiveness analysis; Female; Health Care Surveys; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - economics; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - surgery; Humans; Infant; Male; Markov Chains; Markov influence diagrams; Models, Statistical; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Spain; state‐transition model
• ISSN: 0023-852X; 1531-4995
• DOI: 10.1002/lary.26765

Objectives/Hypothesis To determine the incremental cost‐effectiveness of bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implantation for 1‐year‐old children suffering from bilateral sensorineural severe to profound hearing loss from the perspective of the Spanish public health system. Study Design Cost‐utility analysis. Methods We conducted a general‐population survey to estimate the quality‐of‐life increase contributed by the second implant. We built a Markov influence diagram and evaluated it for a life‐long time horizon with a 3% discount rate in the base case. Results The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of simultaneous bilateral implantation with respect to unilateral implantation for 1‐year‐old children with severe to profound deafness is €10,323 per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY). For sequential bilateral implantation, it rises to €11,733/QALY. Both options are cost‐effective for the Spanish health system, whose willingness to pay is estimated at around €30,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that the probability of bilateral implantation being cost‐effective reaches 100% for that cost‐effectiveness threshold. Conclusions Bilateral implantation is clearly cost‐effective for the population considered. If possible, it should be done simultaneously (i.e., in one surgical operation), because it is as safe and effective as sequential implantation, and saves costs for the system and for users and their families. Sequential implantation is also cost‐effective for children who have received the first implant recently, but it is difficult to determine when it ceases to be so because of the lack of detailed data. These results are specific for Spain, but the model can easily be adapted to other countries. Level of Evidence 2C. Laryngoscope, 127:2866–2872, 2017