Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Automated Auditory Brainstem Response and Otoacoustic Emission in Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

Background: During the last decade, the rapid expansion of universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) has brought into focus questions about the most appropriate screening technology for this indication. Objectives: The main aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) and otoacoustic emissions (OAE) in universal neonatal hearing screening programs. Methods: This economic study was performed in Iran. A decision tree model was applied for economic evaluation of the AABR and OAE devices used in UNHS. The main inputs of our model included the prevalence of hearing loss in Iran, device sensitivity, specificity and cost per case, as well as definite diagnosis of each newborn. Upon collection, these inputs were analyzed with TreeAge economic analysis software. Sensitivity analysis was conducted upon examining the probability of uncertainty concerning the inputs. Results: For a one-year period and a one-million population of newborns, the UNHS entails a cost of $3,310,700 and detects 4,650 newborns with hearing loss, using the AABR device. However, if the OAE device is used, the cost will be expanded to $3,414,100 and 3,850 newborns with hearing loss will be detected. Consequently, the AABR device costs $103,400 less than the OAE device, and detects 800 more cases than the OAE device. Sensitivity analysis results revealed that the prevalence rate or costs of the gold standard had no effect on displacing the dominant technology. Conclusions: In this study, it was found that the AABR is the cost-effective alternative compared to OAE. AABR dominates OAE, because it has lower expected costs and higher effectiveness.

[1]  H. Saeed,et al.  THE SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY OF AUTOMATED AUDITORY BRAINSTEM RESPONSE AND OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION IN NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW , 2015 .

[2]  K. Shibuya,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a National Neonatal Hearing Screening Program in China: Conditions for the Scale-Up , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  M. Burke,et al.  The economics of screening infants at risk of hearing impairment: an international analysis. , 2012, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[4]  T. Nikolopoulos,et al.  Universal newborn hearing screening, a revolutionary diagnosis of deafness: real benefits and limitations , 2011, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[5]  M. Ptok Early detection of hearing impairment in newborns and infants. , 2011, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[6]  A. Foroushani,et al.  Prevalence of neonatal hearing impairment in province capitals , 2008 .

[7]  Jackson Roush,et al.  Year 2007 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs , 2007, Pediatrics.

[8]  M. Farhadi,et al.  The pilot study of a nationwide neonatal hearing screening in Iran: Akbarabadi and Mirzakouchak- Khan hospitals in Tehran (June 2003-October 2004) , 2006 .

[9]  Kuo-Sheng Lee,et al.  Comparison of Hearing Screening Programs between One Step with Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAE) and Two Steps with TEOAE and Automated Auditory Brainstem Response , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[10]  M. Hyde Newborn hearing screening programs: overview. , 2005, The Journal of otolaryngology.

[11]  T. Yoshizaki,et al.  Expression of Interleukin‐8 Receptor A Predicts Poor Outcome in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[12]  Christine Yoshinaga-Itano,et al.  Levels of evidence: universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early hearing detection and intervention systems (EHDI). , 2004, Journal of communication disorders.

[13]  C. Kennedy,et al.  Universal neonatal hearing screening moving from evidence to practice , 2004, Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[14]  B. Olusanya,et al.  Benefits and challenges of newborn hearing screening for developing countries. , 2004, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[15]  A. Fanaroff,et al.  Newborn Hearing Screening: Costs of Establishing a Program , 2002, Journal of Perinatology.

[16]  C. Yoshinaga-Itano,et al.  Developmental outcomes of children with hearing loss born in Colorado hospitals with and without universal newborn hearing screening programs. , 2001, Seminars in neonatology : SN.

[17]  M. Helfand,et al.  Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. , 2001, JAMA.

[18]  A. Summerfield,et al.  Prevalence of permanent childhood hearing impairment in the United Kingdom and implications for universal neonatal hearing screening: questionnaire based ascertainment study. , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  B. Vohr,et al.  Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols. , 2001, The Journal of pediatrics.

[20]  J. Hearing Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. , 2000, Pediatrics.

[21]  S. Downs,et al.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn hearing screening strategies. , 2000, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[22]  L. Thornton,et al.  Parents' knowledge of and attitude towards the primary childhood immunisations. , 2005, Irish medical journal.

[23]  S. Grosse,et al.  Universal neonatal hearing screening. , 2000, Pediatrics.

[24]  K A Stone,et al.  Universal newborn hearing screening. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.