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

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

The Effects and Costs of a Hearing Screening and Rehabilitation Program in Residential Care Homes for the Elderly in the Netherlands

Purpose: This study describes the effects and costs of hearing screening and rehabilitation in residential care homes for the elderly. It was hypothesized that offering an in-house hearing screening and rehabilitation program would be an effective strategy to increase hearing aid ownership among the residents. Method: All 705 residents of 8 residential care homes in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a hearing screening (pure-tone audiometry) and rehabilitation (hearing aids) program. Resident participation was analyzed, and the costs were calculated. Results: A total of 243 residents (34%) participated in the screening, 222 (91%) of whom had hearing loss. Ninety-one (41%) of the screening participants with hearing loss started rehabilitation, which was successful for 50 (55%) of them. Hearing aid ownership among the residents with hearing loss increased from 28% at the start of the program to 33% at the end. The costs were (sic)1,896 (US $2,480) per successfully rehabilitated resident. Hearing aid trials and hearing aids together accounted for 83% of the total costs. Conclusion: The effectiveness of the program was limited, as hearing aid ownership increased only slightly. Cost reduction measures should focus on decreasing the number of unsuccessful hearing aid trials