Potential Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids in the US.

Importance: Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are now available in the US; however, their clinical and economic outcomes are unknown. Objective: To project the clinical and economic outcomes of traditional hearing aid provision compared with OTC hearing aid provision. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness analysis used a previously validated decision model of hearing loss (HL) to simulate US adults aged 40 years and older across their lifetime in US primary care offices who experienced yearly probabilities of acquiring HL (0.1%-10.4%), worsening of their HL, and traditional hearing aid uptake (0.5%-8.1%/y at a fixed uptake cost of $3690) and utility benefits (0.11 additional utils/y). For OTC hearing aid provision, persons with perceived mild to moderate HL experienced increased OTC hearing aid uptake (1%-16%/y) based on estimates of time to first HL diagnosis. In the base case, OTC hearing aid utility benefits ranged from 0.05 to 0.11 additional utils/y (45%-100% of traditional hearing aids), and costs were $200 to $1400 (5%-38% of traditional hearing aids). Distributions were assigned to parameters to conduct probabilistic uncertainty analysis. Intervention: Provision of OTC hearing aids, at increased uptake rates, across a range of effectiveness and costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/y) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Traditional hearing aid provision resulted in 18.162 QALYs, compared with 18.162 to 18.186 for OTC hearing aids varying with OTC hearing aid utility benefit (45%-100% that of traditional hearing aids). Provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater lifetime discounted costs by $70 to $200 along with OTC device cost ($200-$1000/pair; 5%-38% traditional hearing aid cost) due to increased hearing aid uptake. Provision of OTC hearing aids was considered cost-effective (ICER<$100 000/QALY) if the OTC utility benefit was 0.06 or greater (55% of the traditional hearing aid effectiveness). In probabilistic uncertainty analysis, OTC hearing aid provision was cost-effective in 53% of simulations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater uptake of hearing intervention and was cost-effective over a range of prices so long as OTC hearing aids were greater than 55% as beneficial to patient quality of life as traditional hearing aids.

The potential cost-effectiveness of novel cord blood therapies in children with autism spectrum disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To model the long-term clinical and economic outcomes of potential cord blood therapy in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). STUDY DESIGN: Markov microsimulation of ASD over the lifespan was used to compare two strategies: 1) standard of care (SOC), including behavioral and educational interventions, and 2) novel cord blood (CB) intervention in addition to SOC. Input data reflecting behavioral outcomes included baseline Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS-3), monthly VABS-3 changes, and CB intervention efficacy on adaptive behavior based on a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (DukeACT). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were correlated to VABS-3. Costs for children with ASD ($15,791, ages 2-17 years) and adults with ASD ($56,559, ages 18+ years), and the CB intervention (range $15,000-45,000) were incorporated. Alternative CB efficacy and costs were explored. RESULTS: We compared model-projected results to published data on life-expectancy, mean VABS-3 changes, and lifetime costs. Undiscounted lifetime QALYs in the SOC and CB strategies were 40.75 and 40.91. Discounted lifetime costs in the SOC strategy were $1,014,000, and for CB ranged from $1,021,000-$1,058,000 with CB intervention cost ($8,000-$45,000). At $15,000 cost, CB was borderline cost-effective (ICER = $105,000/QALY). In one-way sensitivity analysis, CB cost and efficacy were the most influential parameters on CB ICER. CB intervention was cost-effective at costs<$15,000 and efficacies ≥2.0. Five-year healthcare payer projected budgetary outlays at a $15,000 CB cost were $3.847B. CONCLUSIONS: A modestly effective intervention designed to improve adaptive behavior in autism can be cost-effective under certain circumstances. Intervention cost and efficacy most affected the cost-effectiveness results and should be targeted to increase economic efficiency.

Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA.

BACKGROUND: While 60% of older adults have hearing loss (HL), the majority have never had their hearing tested. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate long-term clinical and economic effects of alternative adult hearing screening schedules in the USA. DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis simulating Current Detection (CD) and linkage of persons with HL to hearing healthcare, compared to alternative screening schedules varying by age at first screen (45 to 75 years) and screening frequency (every 1 or 5 years). Simulated persons experience yearly age- and sex-specific probabilities of acquiring HL, and subsequent hearing aid uptake (0.5-8%/year) and discontinuation (13-4%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated according to hearing level and treatment status. Costs from a health system perspective include screening ($30-120; 2020 USD), HL diagnosis ($300), and hearing aid devices ($3690 year 1, $910/subsequent year). Data sources were published estimates from NHANES and clinical trials of adult hearing screening. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-year-old persons in US primary care across their lifetime. INTERVENTION: Alternative screening schedules that increase baseline probabilities of hearing aid uptake (base-case 1.62-fold; range 1.05-2.25-fold). MAIN MEASURES: Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/year) costs and QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). KEY RESULTS: CD resulted in 1.20 average person-years of hearing aid use compared to 1.27-1.68 with the screening schedules. Lifetime total per-person undiscounted costs were $3300 for CD and ranged from $3630 for 5-yearly screening beginning at age 75 to $6490 for yearly screening beginning at age 45. In cost-effectiveness analysis, yearly screening beginning at ages 75, 65, and 55 years had ICERs of $39,100/QALY, $48,900/QALY, and $96,900/QALY, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variations in hearing aid utility benefit and screening effectiveness. LIMITATION: Input uncertainty around screening effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We project that yearly hearing screening beginning at age 55+ is cost-effective by US standards.

The Impact of Hearing Loss and Its Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life Utility: a Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss significantly impacts health-related quality of life (QoL), yet the effects of current treatments on QoL utility remain uncertain. Our objective was to describe the impact of untreated and treated hearing loss on QoL utility to inform hearing healthcare policy. METHODS: We searched databases for articles published through 02/01/2021. Two independent reviewers screened for articles that reported elicitation of general QoL utility values for untreated and treated hearing loss health states. We extracted data and quality indicators from 62 studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Included studies predominately used observational pre/post designs (61%), evaluated unilateral cochlear implantation (65%), administered the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3; 71%), and were conducted in Europe and North America (84%). In general, treatment of hearing loss improved post-treatment QoL utility when measured by most methods except the Euro-QoL 5 dimension (EQ-5D). In meta-analysis, hearing aids for adult mild-to-moderate hearing loss compared to no treatment significantly improved HUI3-estimated QoL utility (3 studies; mean change=0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07 to 0.14) but did not impact EQ-5D-estimated QoL (3 studies; mean change=0.0; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04). Cochlear implants improved adult QoL utility 1-year post-implantation when measured by the HUI3 (7 studies; mean change=0.17; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.23); however, pediatric VAS-estimated QoL utility was non-significant (4 studies; mean change=0.12; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.25). The quality of included studies was limited by failure to report missingness of data and low survey response rates. Our study was limited by heterogeneous study populations and designs. FINDINGS: Treatment of hearing loss significantly improves QoL utility, and the HUI3 and VAS were most sensitive to improvements in hearing. Improved access to hearing healthcare should be prioritized. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021253314.

Estimated Monetary Value of Future Research Clarifying Uncertainties Around the Optimal Adult Hearing Screening Schedule.

Importance: Adult hearing screening is not routinely performed, and most individuals with hearing loss (HL) have never had their hearing tested as adults. Objective: To project the monetary value of future research clarifying uncertainties around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a validated decision model of HL (DeciBHAL-US: Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan) was used to simulate current detection and treatment of HL vs hearing screening schedules. Key model inputs included HL incidence (0.06%-10.42%/y), hearing aid uptake (0.54%-8.14%/y), screening effectiveness (1.62 × hearing aid uptake), utility benefits of hearing aids (+0.11), and hearing aid device costs ($3690). Distributions to model parameters for probabilistic uncertainty analysis were assigned. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) using a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated. The EVPI and EVPPI estimate the upper bound of the dollar value of future research. This study was based on 40-year-old persons over their remaining lifetimes in a US primary care setting. Exposures: Screening schedules beginning at ages 45, 55, 65, and 75 years, and frequencies of every 1 or 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were QALYs and costs (2020 US dollars) from a health system perspective. Results: The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for yearly screening beginning at ages 55 to 75 years ranged from $39 200 to $80 200/QALY. Yearly screening beginning at age 55 years was the optimal screening schedule in 38% of probabilistic uncertainty analysis simulations. The population EVPI, or value of reducing all uncertainty, was $8.2 to $12.6 billion varying with willingness to pay and the EVPPI, or value of reducing all screening effectiveness uncertainty, was $2.4 billion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of US adult hearing screening, large uncertainty around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule was identified. Future research on hearing screening has a high potential value so is likely justified.

Validation of the Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan (DeciBHAL) in Chile, India, and Nigeria.

Background: There is no published decision model for informing hearing health care resource allocation across the lifespan in low- and middle-income countries. We sought to validate the Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan International (DeciBHAL-I) in Chile, India, and Nigeria. Methods: DeciBHAL-I simulates bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL) acquisition, SNHL progression, and hearing loss treatment. To inform model inputs, we identified setting-specific estimates including SNHL prevalence from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies, acute otitis media (AOM) incidence and prevalence of otitis-media related CHL from a systematic review, and setting-specific pediatric and adult hearing aid use prevalence. We considered a coefficient of variance root mean square error (CV-RMSE) of ≤15% to indicate good model fit. Findings: The model-estimated prevalence of bilateral SNHL closely matched GBD estimates, (CV-RMSEs: 3.2-7.4%). Age-specific AOM incidences from DeciBHAL-I also achieved good fit (CV-RMSEs=5.0-7.5%). Model-projected chronic suppurative otitis media prevalence (1.5% in Chile, 4.9% in India, and 3.4% in Nigeria) was consistent with setting-specific estimates, and the incidence of otitis media-related CHL was calibrated to attain adequate model fit. DeciBHAL-projected adult hearing aid use in Chile (3.2-19.7% ages 65-85 years) was within the 95% confidence intervals of published estimates. Adult hearing aid prevalence from the model in India was 1.4-2.3%, and 1.1-1.3% in Nigeria, consistent with literature-based and expert estimates. Interpretation: DeciBHAL-I reasonably simulates hearing loss natural history, detection, and treatment in Chile, India, and Nigeria. Future cost-effectiveness analyses might use DeciBHAL-I to inform global hearing health policy. Funding: National Institutes of Health (3UL1-TR002553-03S3 and F30 DC019846).

Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

The allocation of healthcare resources among competing priorities requires an assessment of the expected costs and health effects of investing resources in the activities and of the opportunity cost of the expenditure. To date, much effort has been devoted to assessing the expected costs and health effects, but there remains an important need to also reflect the consequences of uncertainty in resource allocation decisions and the value of further research to reduce uncertainty. Decision making with uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal, resulting in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to better inform resource decisions. This value can be quantified using value of information (VOI) analysis. This report from the ISPOR VOI Task Force describes methods for computing 4 VOI measures: the expected value of perfect information, expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI), expected value of sample information (EVSI), and expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). Several methods exist for computing EVPPI and EVSI, and this report provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate method based on the features of the decision problem. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing VOI analyses. The software needed to compute VOI is discussed, and areas for future research are highlighted.

Value of Information Analysis for Research Decisions-An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

Healthcare resource allocation decisions made under conditions of uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal. In a resource constrained system in which there is a fixed budget, these suboptimal decisions will result in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to make better resource allocation decisions. This value can be quantified using a value of information (VOI) analysis. This report, from the ISPOR VOI Task Force, introduces VOI analysis, defines key concepts and terminology, and outlines the role of VOI for supporting decision making, including the steps involved in undertaking and interpreting VOI analyses. The report is specifically aimed at those tasked with making decisions about the adoption of healthcare or the funding of healthcare research. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing the results of VOI analyses.

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 5: advanced analytic methods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Advanced analytic methods for synthesizing evidence about complex interventions continue to be developed. In this paper, we emphasize that the specific research question posed in the review should be used as a guide for choosing the appropriate analytic method. METHODS: We present advanced analytic approaches that address four common questions that guide reviews of complex interventions: (1) How effective is the intervention? (2) For whom does the intervention work and in what contexts? (3) What happens when the intervention is implemented? and (4) What decisions are possible given the results of the synthesis? CONCLUSION: The analytic approaches presented in this paper are particularly useful when each primary study differs in components, mechanisms of action, context, implementation, timing, and many other domains.