Cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants in Korea using different measures of utility

被引:23
|
作者
Lee, Hoo-Yeon
Park, Eun-Cheol
Kim, Han Joong
Choi, Jae-Young
Kim, Hee-Nam
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Grad Sch Publ Hlth, Seoul 120749, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Natl Canc Ctr, Seoul 120749, South Korea
[3] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Prevent Med, Seoul 120749, South Korea
[4] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Otolaryngol, Seoul 120749, South Korea
关键词
cochlear implant; cost-utility analysis; quality-adjusted life year;
D O I
10.1080/00016480500525213
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Conclusions. All cost-utility ratios obtained using the various measures of utility except quality well-being (QWB) were below $25 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Therefore, treatment of post-lingual deaf adults with cochlear implants improves the quality of life at a reasonable direct cost and appears to produce net savings for Korean society. Objectives. To determine the quality of life and the cost consequences of cochlear implants for deaf adults. Patients and methods. We performed a cost-utility analysis using data from 11 post-lingual deaf adults who had received cochlear implants between 1990 and 2002 in Seoul, Korea. The average age of the participants was 49.6 years. The main outcome was the direct cost per QALY calculated using the visual analog scale (VAS), health utility index (HUI), EuroQol (EQ-5D) measure and QWB measure. Costs and utility were discounted 3% annually. Results. Recipients used implants for an average of 5.6 years. The mean VAS, HUI, EQ-5D, and QWB score increased by 0.33 (from 0.27 before implantation to 0.60 at survey), 0.36 (0.29 to 0.65), 0.26 (0.52 to 0.78), and 0.16 (0.45 to 0.61), respectively. The discounted direct cost was $22 320, which yielded a cost-utility ratio of $19 223 per QALY using VAS, $17 387 per QALY using HUI, $24 604 per QALY using EQ-5D, and $40 474 per QALY using QWB.
引用
收藏
页码:817 / 823
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Cost-Utility Analysis in Probabilistic Models
    Baier, Christel
    [J]. 2016 10TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (TASE), 2016, : 1 - 1
  • [32] Cost-utility analysis of taxane therapy
    Yee, GC
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY, 1997, 54 : S11 - S15
  • [33] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF THROMBOLYTIC THERAPY
    SIMOONS, ML
    VOS, J
    MARTENS, LL
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 1991, 12 (06) : 694 - 699
  • [34] A cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision
    Van Howe, RS
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2004, 24 (06) : 584 - 601
  • [35] Standardizing cost-utility analysis in neurosurgery
    Ament, Jared D.
    Kim, Kee D.
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2012, 33 (01)
  • [36] Neonatal circumcision: A cost-utility analysis
    Van Howe, RS
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (04) : 473 - 473
  • [37] Patient preferences and cost-utility analysis
    Elnitsky, CA
    Stone, P
    [J]. APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH, 2005, 18 (02) : 74 - 76
  • [38] Condom distribution: a cost-utility analysis
    Bedimo, AL
    Pinkerton, SD
    Cohen, DA
    Gray, B
    Farley, TA
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS, 2002, 13 (06) : 384 - 392
  • [39] USE OF THE EUROQOL IN COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS
    DECHARRO, F
    VANBUSSCHBACH, J
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1994, 3 (01) : 51 - 51
  • [40] The Effect of Different Utility Measures on the Cost-Effectiveness of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation
    Kuthubutheen, Jafri
    Mittmann, Nicole
    Amoodi, Hosam
    Qian, Wei
    Chen, Joseph M.
    [J]. LARYNGOSCOPE, 2015, 125 (02): : 442 - 447