Cochlear implantation as a treatment for single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a randomized controlled evaluation of cost-utility.

Asymmetric hearing loss Binaural hearing Cochlear implant Cost-utility Single-sided deafness Tinnitus

Journal

BMC ear, nose, and throat disorders
ISSN: 1472-6815
Titre abrégé: BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088673

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 06 09 2018
accepted: 09 01 2019
entrez: 16 2 2019
pubmed: 16 2 2019
medline: 16 2 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have recently been proposed as a new indication for cochlear implantation. There is still no recommended treatment for these hearing deficits, and most options considered rely on the transfer of sound from the poor ear to the better ear, using Contralateral Routing of the Signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone conduction (BC) devices. In contrast, cochlear implantation allows the poor ear to be stimulated and binaural hearing abilities to be partially restored. Indeed, most recently published studies have reported an improvement in the spatial localisation of an incoming sound and better speech recognition in noisy environments after cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL subjects. It also provides consistent relief of tinnitus when associated. These encouraging hearing outcomes raise the question of the cost-utility of this expensive treatment in an extended indication. The final endpoint of this national multicentre study is to determine the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of cochlear implantation in comparison to the current standard of care in France through simple observation, using a randomised controlled trial. Firstly, the study comprises a prospective and descriptive part, where 150 SSD/AHL subjects try CROS hearing aids and a BC device for three weeks each. Secondly, the choice is made between CROS hearing aids, BC implanted device and cochlear implantation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are described after 6 months for the subjects who chose CROS, BC or declined any option. The subjects who opt for cochlear implantation are randomised between one group where the cochlear implant is inserted without delay and one group of simple initial observation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are compared after 6 months. The present study was designed to assess the efficiency of cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL. A favourable cost-utility ratio in this extended indication would strengthen the promising clinical results and justify a reimbursement by the health insurance. The efficiency of other options (CROS, BC) will also be described. This research has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), the 29th July 2014 under the n°NCT02204618.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have recently been proposed as a new indication for cochlear implantation. There is still no recommended treatment for these hearing deficits, and most options considered rely on the transfer of sound from the poor ear to the better ear, using Contralateral Routing of the Signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone conduction (BC) devices. In contrast, cochlear implantation allows the poor ear to be stimulated and binaural hearing abilities to be partially restored. Indeed, most recently published studies have reported an improvement in the spatial localisation of an incoming sound and better speech recognition in noisy environments after cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL subjects. It also provides consistent relief of tinnitus when associated. These encouraging hearing outcomes raise the question of the cost-utility of this expensive treatment in an extended indication.
METHODS METHODS
The final endpoint of this national multicentre study is to determine the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of cochlear implantation in comparison to the current standard of care in France through simple observation, using a randomised controlled trial. Firstly, the study comprises a prospective and descriptive part, where 150 SSD/AHL subjects try CROS hearing aids and a BC device for three weeks each. Secondly, the choice is made between CROS hearing aids, BC implanted device and cochlear implantation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are described after 6 months for the subjects who chose CROS, BC or declined any option. The subjects who opt for cochlear implantation are randomised between one group where the cochlear implant is inserted without delay and one group of simple initial observation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are compared after 6 months.
DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
The present study was designed to assess the efficiency of cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL. A favourable cost-utility ratio in this extended indication would strengthen the promising clinical results and justify a reimbursement by the health insurance. The efficiency of other options (CROS, BC) will also be described.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
This research has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), the 29th July 2014 under the n°NCT02204618.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30766449
doi: 10.1186/s12901-019-0066-7
pii: 66
pmc: PMC6362575
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02204618']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

All of the authorisations required in accordance with French legislation were obtained for this study: “Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament” (ANSM, National Agency of Drug Safety) (authorisation dated May 2014), and approved by the “Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés” (CNIL, French National Agency regulating Data Protection). This study was presented to the South-West and Overseas territories’ Ethics Committee on May 2014. All of the patients taking part in this clinical trial have received verbal and written information and have been able to ask questions about the study. They willingly signed an informed consent form before starting the trial.Not applicable. No private information of patients will be published.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Références

Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 Dec;123(6):756-65
pubmed: 11112975
Audiology. 2001 May-Jun;40(3):133-40
pubmed: 11465295
Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2001;122(5):343-50
pubmed: 12092506
Int J Audiol. 2002 Dec;41(8):527-34
pubmed: 12477173
Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2003 Apr;36(2):345-52
pubmed: 12856302
J Speech Hear Disord. 1965 May;30:121-38
pubmed: 14283692
Ear Hear. 2004 Feb;25(1):9-21
pubmed: 14770014
Int J Audiol. 2004 Feb;43(2):85-99
pubmed: 15035561
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;187:106-8
pubmed: 16055820
Otol Neurotol. 2005 Sep;26(5):999-1006
pubmed: 16151349
Int J Audiol. 2006;45 Suppl 1:S34-44
pubmed: 16938773
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Apr;136(4):597-604
pubmed: 17418258
Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:347-55
pubmed: 17956799
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Mar;138(3):357-62
pubmed: 18312885
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008 Sep;117(9):645-52
pubmed: 18834065
Eur J Health Econ. 2009 Jul;10(3):347-55
pubmed: 19475439
J Am Acad Audiol. 2009 May;20(5):315-9
pubmed: 19585962
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-32
pubmed: 20335313
Am J Audiol. 2010 Jun;19(1):61-72
pubmed: 20538966
Physiol Rev. 2010 Jul;90(3):983-1012
pubmed: 20664077
Otol Neurotol. 2010 Dec;31(9):1381-5
pubmed: 20729788
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2010 Jul;119(7):447-54
pubmed: 20734965
Otol Neurotol. 2011 Jan;32(1):39-47
pubmed: 21068690
J Am Acad Audiol. 2010 Oct;21(9):568-74
pubmed: 21241644
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Mar;269(3):799-805
pubmed: 21833562
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Feb;14(1):57-66
pubmed: 21935715
Int J Audiol. 2012 Mar;51(3):164-73
pubmed: 22122354
Laryngoscope. 2012 Sep;122(9):2088-95
pubmed: 22865630
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Oct;33(8):1339-46
pubmed: 22935813
Value Health. 2014 Jan-Feb;17(1):5-14
pubmed: 24438712
Otol Neurotol. 2014 Sep;35(8):1426-32
pubmed: 24786540
BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2014 Aug 11;14:7
pubmed: 25152694
Ear Hear. 2015 May-Jun;36(3):e93-8
pubmed: 25474416
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Feb;36(2):209-19
pubmed: 25502451
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Dec;272(12):3685-92
pubmed: 25527411
Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20 Suppl 1:38-43
pubmed: 25997394
Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20 Suppl 1:60-6
pubmed: 25997672
Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20 Suppl 1:67-72
pubmed: 25997790
Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20 Suppl 1:79-86
pubmed: 25997991
Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20 Suppl 1:87-9
pubmed: 25998097
Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20 Suppl 1:3-6
pubmed: 25998698
Clin Otolaryngol. 2016 Dec;41(6):737-743
pubmed: 26868059
Ear Hear. 2017 Jan/Feb;38(1):117-125
pubmed: 27513880
BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2015 May 23;15:3
pubmed: 27777509
Clin Otolaryngol. 2017 Oct;42(5):979-987
pubmed: 28063244
Ear Hear. 2017 Mar/Apr;38(2):159-173
pubmed: 28067750
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):127-137
pubmed: 28194657
Cochlear Implants Int. 2017 May;18(3):130-135
pubmed: 28248612
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Jun;274(6):2405-2409
pubmed: 28271322
Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(6):391-398
pubmed: 28319951
Hear Res. 2019 Feb;372:3-9
pubmed: 29588101
Ear Hear. 1986 Feb;7(1):20-6
pubmed: 3949097
Pediatrics. 1984 Aug;74(2):206-16
pubmed: 6462820
Hear Res. 1994 May;75(1-2):38-46
pubmed: 8071153
Health Econ. 1993 Oct;2(3):237-46
pubmed: 8275169
Health Econ. 1997 Jul-Aug;6(4):327-40
pubmed: 9285227

Auteurs

Mathieu Marx (M)

1Service d'Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie, d'Oto-Neurologie et d'ORL Pédiatrique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Université de Toulouse, CerCo UMR 5549 CNRS, Université Paul Sabatier, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.

Nadège Costa (N)

3Health Economic Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Hôtel-Dieu Saint-Jacques, 2, rue viguerie, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
4Unité Inserm UMR 1027, Faculté de Médecine, National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm), 37 allées Jules Guesde, 31073 Toulouse, France.

Benoit Lepage (B)

Department of Epidemiology, USMR, 37 allées Jules Guesde, 31073 Toulouse, France.

Soumia Taoui (S)

1Service d'Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie, d'Oto-Neurologie et d'ORL Pédiatrique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.

Laurent Molinier (L)

3Health Economic Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Hôtel-Dieu Saint-Jacques, 2, rue viguerie, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
4Unité Inserm UMR 1027, Faculté de Médecine, National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm), 37 allées Jules Guesde, 31073 Toulouse, France.

Olivier Deguine (O)

1Service d'Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie, d'Oto-Neurologie et d'ORL Pédiatrique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Université de Toulouse, CerCo UMR 5549 CNRS, Université Paul Sabatier, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.

Bernard Fraysse (B)

1Service d'Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie, d'Oto-Neurologie et d'ORL Pédiatrique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.

Classifications MeSH