IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0220439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bilateral cochlear implants for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears in Singapore

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Jen Cheng
  • Swee Sung Soon
  • David Bin-Chia Wu
  • Hong Ju
  • Kwong Ng

Abstract

A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that provides a sense of sound for the user, which can be used unilaterally or bilaterally. Although there is advocacy for the benefits of binaural hearing, the high cost of cochlear implant raises the question of whether its additional benefits over the use of an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear outweigh its costs. This cost-effectiveness analysis aimed to separately assess the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations compared to bimodal hearing (use of unilateral cochlear implant combined with an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear) in children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained and costs associated with bilateral cochlear implants over the lifetime horizon were estimated based on a four-state Markov model. The analysis results showed that, at the 2017 mean cost, compared to bimodal hearing, patients receiving bilateral cochlear implants experienced more QALYs but incurred higher costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD$60,607 per QALY gained for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation, and USD$81,782 per QALY gained for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants is most sensitive to utility gain associated with second cochlear implant, and cost of bilateral cochlear implants. ICERs increased when the utility gain from bilateral cochlear implants decreased; ICERs exceeded USD$120,000 per QALY gained when the utility gain was halved from 0.03 to 0.015 in both simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations. The choice of incremental utility gain associated with the second cochlear implant is an area of considerable uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Jen Cheng & Swee Sung Soon & David Bin-Chia Wu & Hong Ju & Kwong Ng, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of bilateral cochlear implants for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears in Singapore," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220439
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220439
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220439&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0220439?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.