Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge 601 versus percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices over a 5-year follow-up period.

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices (pBAHDs) are the most commonly used bone conduction implants (BCI). Concerns surround the long-term complications, notably skin-related, in patients with percutaneous abutments. The active transcutaneous BCI Bonebridge system can help avoid some of these pitfalls but is often considered a second-line option due to various factors including perceived increased overall costs. DESIGN: Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge BCI 601 versus pBAHD over a 5-year follow-up period. SETTING: A specialist hearing implant centre. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (≥16 years) with conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness, who received a Bonebridge or pBAHD implant between 1/7/2013 and 1/12/2018 with a minimum 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the mean costs per implanted patient for both implants at 1, 3 and 5 years postoperative time points. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using objective and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: The mean total cost per patient of Bonebridge was significantly higher than pBAHD at 1-year post-implantation (£8512 standard deviation [SD] £715 vs £5590 SD £1394, P < .001); however, by 5-years post-implantation this difference was no longer statistically significant (£12 453 SD £2159 vs £12 575 SD £3854, P > .05). The overall cost convergence was mainly accounted for by the increased long-term complications, revision surgery rates and higher cost of the pBAHD external processor compared to Bonebridge. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term costs of Bonebridge to healthcare providers are comparable to pBAHDs, whilst offering lower complication rates, comparable audiological benefit and patient satisfaction. Bonebridge should be considered as a first-line BCI option in appropriate cases.

Mini Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Unilateral Osseointegrated Implants in Adults: Possibly Cost-Effective for the Correct Indication.

An osseointegrated implant (e.g. bone-anchored hearing aid, BAHA) is a surgically implantable device for unilateral sensorineural and unilateral or bilateral conductive hearing loss in patients who otherwise cannot use or do not prefer a conventional air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). The specific indications for an osseointegrated implant are evolving and dependent upon the country or regulatory body overseeing the provision of these devices. However, there are general groups of patients who would be likely to benefit, one such group being patients with congenital aural atresia. Given the anatomical aberrancies with aural atresia, these subjects cannot wear ACHAs. Another group of patients who may benefit from an osseointegrated implant over an ACHA are patients with chronically draining otological infections. As the provision of an osseointegrated implant requires a surgical procedure, there are inherent direct and indirect costs associated with its use beyond those required for an ACHA. Consideration of outcomes and cost-effectiveness for the osseointegrated implant versus the ACHA is prudent prior to making policy decisions in a setting of limited health care resources. We performed a mini review on all available cost-effectiveness analyses of osseointegrated implants published in Medline. There are only 2 contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses published to date. There is limited quality of life data available for patients living with an osseointegrated implant. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of the osseointegrated implant, specifically the BAHA, compared to conventional hearing aid devices remains unclear. However, there are clear indications for the BAHA when a standard hearing aid cannot be used (e.g. chronic draining ear) or in single-sided severe-to-profound hearing loss with reasonable hearing in the contralateral ear. The BAHA should not be considered interchangeable with the ACHA with regard to cost-effectiveness, but rather considered as an effective option for the patient for the correct indication.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the bone-anchored hearing device.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the cost-effectiveness of a bone-anchored hearing device (BAHD). To date, there has not been any formal economic analysis of this treatment. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort case-control analysis. SETTING: Tertiary referral center, university hospital. PATIENTS: Between April 2007 and June 2008, all adult patients undergoing their first BAHD were contacted and invited to take part in this study. Data of 70 patients were completed during the study period and were analyzed. INTERVENTIONS: A health utility measure was made before and after the insertion of a BAHD to estimate the utility gain associated with this intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain for each patient was established, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: The results of our analysis are that, compared with current standard care, the BAHD has an ICER of £17,610 (US $26,415) per QALY gained. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will endorse a health intervention as cost-effective if the ICER is below £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY (US $30,000-45,000). CONCLUSION: This technology is likely to be cost-effective at the current thresholds used by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Therefore, this study suggests the BAHD may be a cost-effective method of auditory rehabilitation.

Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) for people who are bilaterally deaf: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: A bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) consists of a permanent titanium fixture, which is surgically implanted into the skull bone behind the ear, and a small detachable sound processor that clips onto the fixture. BAHAs are suitable for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who cannot benefit fully from conventional hearing aids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BAHAs for people who are bilaterally deaf. DATA SOURCES: Nineteen electronic resources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (inception to November 2009). Additional studies were sought from reference lists and clinical experts. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Prospective studies of adults or children with bilateral hearing loss were eligible. Comparisons were BAHAs versus conventional hearing aids [air conduction hearing aid (ACHA) or bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA)], unaided hearing and ear surgery; and unilateral versus bilateral BAHAs. Outcomes included hearing measures, validated measures of quality of life (QoL), adverse events and measures of cost-effectiveness. For the review of cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations were eligible. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (seven cohort pre-post studies and five cross-sectional 'audiological comparison' studies). No prospective studies comparing BAHAs with ear surgery were identified. Overall quality was rated as weak for all included studies and meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in outcome measures and patient populations. There appeared to be some audiological benefits of BAHAs compared with BCHAs and improvements in speech understanding in noise compared with ACHAs; however, ACHAs may produce better audiological results for other outcomes. The limited evidence reduces certainty. Hearing is improved with BAHAs compared with unaided hearing. Improvements in QoL with BAHAs were identified by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic QoL measures. Studies comparing unilateral with bilateral BAHAs suggested benefits of bilateral BAHAs in many, but not all, situations. Prospective case series reported between 6.1% and 19.4% loss of implants. Most participants experienced no or minor skin reactions. A decision analytic model was developed. Costs and benefits of unilateral BAHAs were estimated over a 10-year time horizon, applying discount rates of 3.5%. The incremental cost per user receiving BAHA, compared with BCHA, was £ 16,409 for children and £ 13,449 for adults. In an exploratory analysis the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was between £ 55,642 and £ 119,367 for children and between £ 46,628 and £ 100,029 for adults for BAHAs compared with BCHA, depending on the assumed QoL gain and proportion of each modelled cohort using their hearing aid for ≥ 8 or more hours per day. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested that the results were highly sensitive to the assumed proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values (£ 500,000-1,200,000 per QALY gained) associated with a high proportion of people using BCHA. More acceptable values (£ 15,000-37,000 per QALY gained) were associated with a low proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day (compared with BAHA). LIMITATIONS: The economic evaluation presented in this report is severely limited by a lack of robust evidence on the outcome of hearing aid provision. This has lead to a more restricted analysis than was originally anticipated (limited to a comparison of BAHA and BCHA). In the absence of useable QoL data, the cost-effectiveness analysis is based on potential utility gains from hearing, that been inferred using a QoL instrument rather than measures reported by hearing aid users themselves. As a result the analysis is regarded as exploratory and the reported results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that BAHAs are unlikely to be a cost-effective option where the benefits (in terms of hearing gain and probability of using of alternative aids) are similar for BAHAs and their comparators. The greater the benefit from aided hearing and the greater the difference in the proportion of people using the hearing aid for ≥ 8 hours per day, the more likely BAHAs are to be a cost-effective option. The inclusion of other dimensions of QoL may also increase the likelihood of BAHAs being a cost-effective option. A national audit of BAHAs is needed to provide clarity on the many areas of uncertainty surrounding BAHAs. Further research into the non-audiological benefits of BAHAs, including QoL, is required.

A multicenter trial of an assess-and-fit hearing aid service using open canal fittings and comply ear tips.

Large potential benefits have been suggested for an assess-and-fit approach to hearing health care, particularly using open canal fittings. However, the clinical effectiveness has not previously been evaluated, nor has the efficiency of this approach in a National Health Service setting. These two outcomes were measured in a variety of clinical settings in the United Kingdom. Twelve services in England and Wales participated, and 540 people with hearing problems, not previously referred for assessment, were included. Of these, 68% (n = 369) were suitable and had hearing aids fitted to NAL NL1 during the assess-and-fit visit using either open ear tips, or Comply ear tips. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was used to compare patients fitted with open ear tips with a group of patients from the English Modernization of Hearing Aid Services evaluation, who used custom earmolds. This showed a significant improvement in outcome for those with open ear tips after allowing for age and hearing loss in the analysis. In particular, the benefits of using bilateral open ear tips were significantly larger than bilateral custom earmolds. This assess-and-fit model showed a mean service efficiency gain of about 5% to 10%. The actual gain will depend on current practice, in particular on the separate appointments used, the numbers of patients failing to attend appointments, and the numbers not accepting a hearing aid solution for their problem. There are potentially further efficiency and quality gains to be made if patients are appropriately triaged before referral.

Management of otitis media using Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.

Increased costs of managing otitis media and its complications may result from delays in diagnosis and treatment. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research developed guidelines to assist in the management of chronic otitis media with effusion. We examined the medical care adherence to Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines in 59 consecutive patients referred because of chronic otitis media with effusion and recurrent acute otitis media. Patient history and examination data were collected prospectively. In the group with chronic otitis media with effusion, the rate of adherence to Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines was 0%; in those with recurrent acute otitis media, adherence was 5%. Delayed referral occurred in 34% of patients; 25% of patients were referred early. The average duration of effusion in patients with chronic otitis media with effusion was 5.2 months; the duration of recurrent acute otitis media immediately before referral was 9.3 months. Eighteen patients (47%) in the chronic otitis media with effusion group had a history of recurrent chronic otitis media with effusion spanning an average of 22.7 months. On referral, hearing loss was discovered in 92% of all patients, and in 69% the tympanogram was flat. The complication and sequelae rate was 49.1%, and speech delay was the most frequent at 16.9%. We conclude that in our study patients there is a significant referral delay, long history of chronic otitis media with effusion in patients before referral, high rate of hearing loss, and high complication rate. Continued efforts should be directed toward improving education of all clinicians so that diagnostic tools and timely otolaryngologic referral are better used.