[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 536
Citations 0
Original Investigation
November 7, 2019

Cost-effectiveness of Stapedectomy vs Hearing Aids in the Treatment of Otosclerosis

Author Affiliations
  • 1University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla
  • 2Division of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Published online November 7, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.3221
Key Points

Question  Is stapedectomy a cost-effective method of treating otosclerosis compared with hearing aids?

Findings  This cost-effectiveness analysis found that, although stapedectomy was associated with increased lifetime costs by $2978.01 compared with hearing aids, stapedectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3918.43 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Meaning  This model suggests that stapedectomy is a cost-effective option for treating otosclerosis from a patient perspective.

Abstract

Importance  Otosclerosis can be managed through surgical treatment, such as stapedectomy, or through hearing amplification with hearing aids. To our knowledge, there has been no cost-effectiveness analysis of these 2 treatment methods.

Objective  To determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aid use for the treatment of otosclerosis.

Design and Setting  In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision tree was built to model the treatment choices for otosclerosis. The tree was run as a Markov model of a case patient aged 30 years. The model spanned the patient’s lifetime to determine total costs of management of otosclerosis with stapedectomy or hearing aids. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a willingness to pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A 2-way sensitivity analysis was performed for the cost of stapedectomy vs the cost of hearing aids. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the likelihood that stapedectomy would be cost-effective across a range of model inputs.

Interventions  Stapedectomy vs hearing aid use.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of stapedectomy vs hearing aids in the treatment of otosclerosis. The secondary objectives were to determine which factors are associated with the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

Results  Stapedectomy had an estimated lifetime cost of $19 417.95, while hearing aids had an average lifetime cost of $16 439.94. Stapedectomy also had a benefit of 16.58 QALYs, and hearing aids had a benefit of 15.82 QALYs. Stapedectomy increases lifetime costs by $2978.01, with a benefit of 0.76 QALYs compared with hearing aids. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for stapedectomy is $3918.43 per QALY. The model was sensitive to the cost of stapedectomy and the cost of stapedectomy revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that stapedectomy was cost-effective compared with hearing aids 99.98% of the time.

Conclusions and Relevance  Stapedectomy appears to be a cost-effective option for treating otosclerosis compared with hearing aid use, from the patient perspective.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    ×