Access to cochlear implants: Time to reflect.

Cochlear implant (CI) intervention is expensive and accessed mainly by developed countries. The introduction of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and funding via a public health service give children better access to CIs. However for adults large disparities exist between utilization and estimated prevalence. In the UK CI selection criteria are restrictive compared with many other countries. Improved audiological awareness and screening programmes for adults would improve access to hearing technologies that would improve health and quality of life. Hearing loss itself has significant medical and financial burdens on society and by investing in early intervention and using best technology this would mitigate some of the rising associated medical costs.

The cost and analysis of nonuse of cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVE: Analysis of the cost implications and reasons for nonuse of cochlear implants in an established cochlear implant unit. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical data were analyzed retrospectively to construct a table of cochlear implant use over time to identify nonuse and to suggest the reasons for this. SETTING: Yorkshire Cochlear Implant Service is a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Three hundred forty consecutively implanted patients from 1990 to 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Life table analysis showed that most children used their implant (p = 0.7 during 11 yr). However, 11 of 155 children and 2 of 185 adults became nonusers during the period of study. The 11 children stopped because of age at implant, educational placement, and family support. Two adults stopped because of psychological issues and inability to adapt to the signal. Surgical and implant costs have initial impact, with subsequent years' costs reflecting programming issues and maintenance. When considering nonuse, there are 2 effects: first, no more costs are incurred, and second, no more years of use are accumulated. Thus, nonuse reduces both costs and years. Costs of gaining a year of use as a function of time showed that there was little financial impact from the 11 children nonusers. As a ratio of "no nonuse" and observed "nonuse" in children, the ratio is 1.07 by 13 years of implantation (7%). The adult group was too few to analyze. CONCLUSION: The nonuse added 7% to the average cost. Retrospective audit identifies that patient selection by a multidisciplinary team is crucial to reducing nonuse.

Acceptability of a reusable insulin pen, HumaPen Ergo, by patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

A reusable insulin pen (HumaPen Ergo) was tested for patient acceptability and safety in two multinational studies involving a total of 230 patients with either type 1 (27%) or type 2 (73%) diabetes. Prior to the studies, all patients used other insulin injection pen models. During the 5-7-week studies, the acceptability of HumaPen Ergo was assessed with a questionnaire which was issued to all patients. The HumaPen Ergo was considered easy/very easy with respect to learning to use (97%), reading dose numbers (95%) and correcting dose mistakes (97%), and 62% considered it easy/very easy to hold during use. HumaPen Ergo features considered easier/much easier compared to the previously used model of pen were ease of correcting dose (Study 1/Study 2: 89%/93%), ease of reading the dose number (77%/61 %) and ease of changing cartridge (54%/68%). At the end of the studies the majority of patients (60%/69%) said that they would continue to use HumaPen Ergo and would recommend it to other patients, even though they had expressed satisfaction with the pen that they had used previously. Health-care professionals evaluated HumaPen Ergo according to the same criteria as the patients and said that they would recommend the HumaPen Ergo owing to ease of dialling back without wasting insulin (80%) and reading dose numbers (74%). The HumaPen Ergo was well accepted by both patients and health-care professionals and provides an important tool to combat the trauma and inconvenience associated with insulin self-injection.