Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

OBJECTIVES: To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting METHODS: Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined. RESULTS: All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from 647,209 euros/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to 15,811 euros/QALY for HUI3. CONCLUSION: Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyse

Potential barriers and facilitators for implementation of an integrated care pathway for hearing-impaired persons: an exploratory survey among patients and professionals

BACKGROUND: Because of the increasing costs and anticipated shortage of Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) specialists in the care for hearing-impaired persons, an integrated care pathway that includes direct hearing aid provision was developed. While this direct pathway is still under investigation, in a survey we examined expectations and potential barriers and facilitators towards this direct pathway, of patients and professionals involved in the pathway. METHODS: Two study populations were assessed: members of the health professions involved in the care pathway for hearing-impaired persons (general practitioners (GPs), hearing aid dispensers, ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists) and persons with hearing complaints. We developed a comprehensive semi-structured questionnaire for the professionals, regarding expectations, barriers, facilitators and conditions for implementation. We developed two questionnaires for persons with hearing complaints, both regarding evaluations and preferences, and administered them after they had experienced two key elements of the direct pathway: the triage and the hearing aid fitting. RESULTS: On average GPs and hearing aid dispensers had positive expectations towards the direct pathway, while ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists had negative expectations. Professionals stated both barriers and facilitators towards the direct pathway. Most professionals either supported implementation of the direct pathway, provided that a number of conditions were satisfied, or did not support implementation, unless roughly the same conditions were satisfied. Professionals generally agreed on which conditions need to be satisfied. Persons with hearing complaints evaluated the present referral pathway and the new direct pathway equally. Many, especially older, participants stated however that they would still visit the GP and ENT-specialist, even when this would not be necessary for reimbursement of the hearing aid, and found it important that the ENT-specialist or Audiological Centre evaluated their hearing aid. CONCLUSION: This study identified professional concerns about the direct pathway for hearing-impaired persons. Gaps exist in expectations amongst professions. Also gaps exist between users of the pathway, especially between age groups and regions. Professionals are united in the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a successful implementation of the direct pathway. Implementation on a regional level is recommended to best satisfy these conditions

Ototoxicity of cisplatin plus standard radiation therapy vs. accelerated radiation therapy in glioblastoma patients

Purpose : To assess the effect of cisplatin (CDDP) plus concurrent radiation therapy on hearing loss. Methods : 451 patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) were randomly assigned after surgery to: Arm A: Carmustine (BCNU) + standard radiation therapy (SRT); Arm B: BCNU + accelerated radiation therapy (ART: 160 cGy twice daily for 15 days); Arm C: CDDP + BCNU + SRT; or Arm D: CDDP + BCNU + ART. Patients on arms C and D received audiograms at baseline, and prior to the start of RT, and prior to cycles 3 and 6. Otologic toxicities were recorded at each visit. Results : 56% of patients had hearing loss at baseline. 13% and 50% of patients experienced worsening ototoxicity after 1 year of treatment in arms A and B vs. C and D, respectively, with 13% of those on arms C and D experiencing significant ototoxicity (≥ grade 3) at 6 months. Increasing age was associated with an increased risk of ototoxicity. Conclusions : Increased exposure to CDDP increases the risk of ototoxicity over time. Older patients are more susceptible to hearing loss with CDDP. The low proportion of patients with clinically significant ototoxicity suggests that baseline screening is unnecessary in GBM patients.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43476/1/11060_2005_Article_9049.pd