Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE To conduct a meta-analysis of the cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE literature search, review of article bibliographies, and consultation with experts. STUDY SELECTION Studies that reported (1) data on adults (age > or = 18 years) with bilateral, postlingual, profound deafness; (2) a health-utility gain from cochlear implantation on a scale from 0.00 (death) to 1.00 (perfect health); (3) a cost-utility ratio in terms of dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); and (4) at least 1 conventional statistical parameter (ie, SD, 95% confidence interval [CI], or P value). DATA EXTRACTION From each study, we extracted the number of subjects, study design, health-utility instrument used, health-utility associated with profound deafness, health-utility gain from cochlear implantation, cost-utility of cochlear implantation, and reported statistical parameters. DATA SYNTHESIS Weighted averages were calculated using a statistical weight of 1 per variance. Pooling 9 reports (n = 619), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults without cochlear implants was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.52-0.56). Pooling 7 studies (n = 511), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults after cochlear implantation was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.82). This improvement of 0.26 in health-utility resulted in a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS Profound deafness in adults results in a substantial health-utility loss. Over half of that loss is restored after cochlear implantation, yielding a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. This figure compares favorably with medical and surgical interventions that are commonly covered by third-party payers in the United States today.

[1]  A. Summerfield,et al.  Cochlear Implantation: Demand, Costs, and Utility , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[2]  W. G. Cochran The combination of estimates from different experiments. , 1954 .

[3]  J K Niparko,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of the multichannel cochlear implant. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[4]  N. Cohen,et al.  Cochlear Implants , 2000 .

[5]  Eddy Dm,et al.  Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Benefit language: criteria that will improve quality while reducing costs. , 1996 .

[6]  G W Torrance,et al.  Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. , 1995, PharmacoEconomics.

[7]  R M Kaplan,et al.  Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. , 1976, Health services research.

[8]  Donald K. Eddington,et al.  Cochlear Implants in Adults and Children , 1995 .

[9]  R. Koff,et al.  Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine , 1995 .

[10]  D. Feeny,et al.  A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. , 1992, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  J. Niparko,et al.  Cost Utility of the Multichannel Cochlear Implant in 258 Profoundly Deaf Individuals , 1996, The Laryngoscope.

[12]  Lea Ar,et al.  The cochlear implant. A technology for the profoundly deaf. , 1995 .

[13]  J. Harris,et al.  An outcomes study of cochlear implants in deaf patients. Audiologic, economic, and quality-of-life changes. , 1995, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[14]  P. Ries Prevalence and characteristics of persons with hearing trouble: United States, 1990-91. , 1994, Vital and health statistics. Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey.

[15]  N Marangos,et al.  COCHLEAR IMPLANTS , 1976, The Lancet.

[16]  The cochlear implant. A technology for the profoundly deaf. , 1995, Medical progress through technology.

[17]  G. de Lissovoy,et al.  A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. , 1999, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[18]  D. Feeny,et al.  Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years , 1989, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.