Treatment cost effectiveness in acute otitis media: A watch-and-wait approach versus amoxicillin

A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of antibiotic prescription strategies for non-complicated respiratory tract infections in children

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children attending primary care centres is almost double that predicted according to bacterial prevalence. Delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) is designed to deploy a more rational use of antibiotics. While studies have evaluated DAP efficacy and safety for children with RTIs, little research has been conducted on the economic implications.

METHODS

Our trial compared cost-effectiveness for DAP, immediate antibiotic prescription (IAP), and no antibiotic prescription (NAP) for children aged 2-14 years with acute uncomplicated RTIs attended to in 39 primary care centres in Spain. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in euros per gained quality-adjusted life days (QALDs). Net monetary benefit (NMB) was also calculated as a tool for decision making. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective for a time horizon of 30 days, and included healthcare direct costs, non-healthcare direct and indirect costs, and the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) cost.

RESULTS

DAP was the most cost-effective strategy, even when the cost of AMR was included. QALD values for the three strategies were very similar. IAP compared to DAP was more costly (109.68 vs 100.90 euros) and similarly effective (27.88 vs 27.94 QALDs). DAP compared to NAP was more costly (100.90 vs 97.48 euros) and more effective (27.94 vs. 27.82 QALDs). The ICER for DAP compared to NAP was 28.84 euros per QALD. The deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that non-healthcare indirect costs had the greatest impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that DAP was the preferred option in approximately 81.75% of Monte Carlo iterations, assuming a willingness-to-pay value of 82.2 euros per gained QALD.

CONCLUSIONS

When clinicians are in doubt about whether an antibiotic is needed for children with RTIs attending PC centres, those treated with the DAP strategy will have slightly better efficiency outcomes than those treated with IAP because its costs are lower than those of IAP. DAP is also the most cost-effective strategy over a time horizon of 30 days if AMR is considered, despite higher short-term costs than NAP. However, if in the long term the costs of AMR are larger than estimated, NAP could also be an alternative strategy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (identifier NCT01800747; Date: 28/02/2013 (retrospectively registered).

Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants.

RESULTS

We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, P = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, P < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio -2.0 vs. 0.6, P < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signal-to-noise ratio improved by 1.3-2.5 dB, P < .05 for active transcutaneous devices; GRADE: Moderate) and hearing-specific quality of life (Abbreviated Profile for Hearing Aid Benefit, ease of communication: 12%-53% vs. 24%-59%; background noise: 18%-48% vs. 33%-79%; listening in reverberant condition: 26%-55% vs. 41%-65%, P < .05 [active percutaneous devices]; ease of communication: 7% vs. 20%; background noise: 46% vs. 69%; listening in reverberant condition: 27% vs. 43%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices]; Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties score 7.3 vs. 3.4; P < .05 [passive transcutaneous devices]; GRADE: Moderate). For those with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention improve hearing thresholds (improved 19-45 dB [active percutaneous devices], improved 24-37 dB [active transcutaneous devices], improved 31 dB [passive transcutaneous devices], and improved 21-49 dB [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), speech perception (% correct: 77%-93% vs. < 25%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices], % speech recognition: 55%-98% vs. 0-72%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life and subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: Moderate).In the cost-utility analyses, cochlear implants for adults and children with single-sided deafness provided greater health gains for an incremental cost, compared with no intervention. On average, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $17,783 and $18,148 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, 70% of the simulations were considered cost-effective. For the same population, bone-conduction implants were not likely to be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $402,899-$408,350/QALY). Only 38% of simulations were considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY. For adults and children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $74,155-$87,580/QALY). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the results. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, only 50% to 55% of simulations were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to changes in health-related utilities (measured using generic quality-of-life tools), highlighting the limitations of currently published data (i.e., small sample sizes and short follow-up).For people with single-sided deafness, publicly funding cochlear implants in Ontario would result in an estimated additional cost of $2.8 million to $3.6 million in total over the next 5 years, and an additional $0.8 million would be required for bone-conduction implants for this population. For people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, publicly funding bone-conduction implants would cost an estimated additional $3.1 million to $3.3 million in total over the next 5 years.In interviews, people with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss reported that standard hearing aids did not meet their expectations; therefore, they chose to undergo surgery for an implantable device. Most participants with experience of a cochlear implant or bone-conduction implant spoke positively about being able to hear better and enjoy a better quality of life. People with a cochlear implant reported additional benefits: binaural hearing, better sound localization, and better hearing in noisy areas. Cost and access were barriers to receiving an implantable device.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence of moderate quality, cochlear implantation and bone-conduction implants improve functional and patient-important outcomes in adults and children with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. Qualitative results of interviews with patients are consistent with the findings of the systematic reviews we examined.Among people with single-sided deafness, cochlear implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention, but bone-conduction implants are unlikely to be. Among people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention. Results and uncertainty are mainly driven by changes in health utilities associated with having a hearing implant. Hence, further research on utility values in this population is warranted with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.The 5-year cost of publicly funding both types of hearing implant for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss in Ontario is estimated to be $6.7 million to $7.8 million.

Updated Guidelines for the Management of Acute Otitis Media in Children by the Italian Society of Pediatrics: Treatment

BACKGROUND

New insights into the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of acute otitis media (AOM) have been gained in recent years. For this reason, the Italian Paediatric Society has updated its 2010 guidelines.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out on PubMed. Only pediatric studies published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2018 in English or Italian were included. Each included study was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. The quality of the systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2. The recommendations were formulated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts.

RESULTS

Prompt antibiotic treatment is recommended for children with otorrhea, intracranial complications and/or a history of recurrence and for children under the age of 6 months. For children 6 months to 2 years of age, prompt antibiotic treatment is recommended for all forms of unilateral and bilateral AOM, whether mild or severe. Prompt antibiotic treatment is also recommended for children over 2 years with severe bilateral AOM. A watchful-waiting approach can be applied to children over 2 years with mild or severe unilateral AOM or mild bilateral AOM. High doses of amoxicillin, or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for patients with a high risk of infection by Beta-lactamase producing strains, remain the first-line antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

AOM should be managed on a case-by-case basis that takes account of the child's age, the severity of the episode and whether it is unilateral or bilateral. In patients under 2 years, prompt antibiotic treatment is always recommended.

Pneumococcal Disease: A Systematic Review of Health Utilities, Resource Use, Costs, and Economic Evaluations of Interventions

BACKGROUND

Pneumococcal diseases cause substantial mortality, morbidity, and economic burden. Evidence on data inputs for economic evaluations of interventions targeting pneumococcal disease is critical.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize evidence on resource use, costs, health utilities, and cost-effectiveness for pneumococcal disease and associated interventions to inform future economic analyses.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Cochrane databases for peer-reviewed studies in English on pneumococcal disease that reported health utilities using direct or indirect valuation methods, resource use, costs, or cost-effectiveness of intervention programs, and summarized the evidence descriptively.

RESULTS

We included 383 studies: 9 reporting health utilities, 131 resource use, 160 economic costs of pneumococcal disease, 95 both resource use and costs, and 178 economic evaluations of pneumococcal intervention programs. Health state utility values ranged from 0 to 1 for both meningitis and otitis media and from 0.3 to 0.7 for both pneumonia and sepsis. Hospitalization was shortest for otitis media (range: 0.1-5 days) and longest for sepsis/septicemia (6-48). The main categories of costs reported were drugs, hospitalization, and household or employer costs. Resource use was reported in hospital length of stay and number of contacts with general practitioners. Costs and resource use significantly varied among population ages, disease conditions, and settings. Current vaccination programs for both adults and children, antibiotic use and outreach programs to promote vaccination, early disease detection, and educational programs are cost-effective in most countries.

CONCLUSION

This study has generated a comprehensive repository of health economic evidence on pneumococcal disease that can be used to inform future economic evaluations of pneumococcal disease intervention programs.

Costs of acute otitis media in children in a city of the Colombian Caribbean coast

INTRODUCTION

Acute otitis media is the main cause of consultation, antibiotic use, and ambulatory surgery in developed countries; besides, it is associated with an important economic burden. However, non-medical indirect costs of acute otitis media, which are relevant in this pathology, have been underestimated.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the costs of acute otitis media in pediatric patients in Cartagena, Colombia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of micro-costing between 2014 and 2015. The direct and indirect costs of acute otitis media were determined through forms applied to parents or caregivers. Loss of productivity was estimated based on the monthly legal minimum wage of 2014 (COP $616.000) (USD $308).

RESULTS

A total of 62 episodes of acute otitis media occurred. The total economic costs attributed per episode was COP $358,954 (standard deviation: SD ± COP $254,903, i.e., USD $179). The total economic burden was COP $22,503,141 (USD $11,250), the indirect costs per episode were COP $101,402 (USD $51), and the average care time spent by parents was 3.7 days.

CONCLUSION

The estimated costs of acute otitis media in this study were lower than the costs estimated in a review of high-income countries and similar to those of low-income countries such as Nigeria. Information on total costs (direct and indirect) of acute otitis media is necessary for public health decision-making and for full cost-effectiveness assessments.

Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Sensorineural hearing loss occurs as a result of damage to the hair cells in the cochlea, or to the auditory nerve. It negatively affects learning and development in children, and employment and economic attainment in adults. Current policy in Ontario is to provide unilateral cochlear implantation for patients with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, hearing with both ears as a result of bilateral cochlear implantation may offer added benefits.

METHODS

We completed a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, value for money, budget impact, and patient preferences related to bilateral cochlear implantation. We performed a systematic literature search for studies on bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children from inception to March 2017. We conducted a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective and analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children in Ontario for the next 5 years. Finally, we conducted interviews with adults who have sensorineural hearing loss and unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants, and with parents of children with bilateral cochlear implants.

RESULTS

We included 24 publications (10 in adults, 14 in children) in the clinical evidence review. Compared with unilateral cochlear implantation, bilateral cochlear implantation improved sound localization, speech perception in noise, and subjective benefits of hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (GRADE: moderate to high). Bilateral cochlear implantation also allowed for better language development and more vocalization in preverbal communication in children (GRADE: moderate). The safety profile was acceptable.Bilateral cochlear implantation was more expensive and more effective than unilateral cochlear implantation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $48,978/QALY in adults and between $27,427/QALY and $30,386/QALY in children. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the quality-of-life values used. We estimated that the net budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation for adults in Ontario would be between $510,000 and $780,000 per year for the next 5 years.Patients described the social and emotional effects of hearing loss, and the benefits and challenges of using cochlear implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence of moderate to high quality, we found that bilateral cochlear implantation improved hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Bilateral cochlear implantation was potentially cost-effective compared to unilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children. Patients with sensorineural hearing loss reported the positive effects of cochlear implants, and patients with unilateral cochlear implants generally expressed a desire for bilateral implants.

Cost-Effectiveness of Watchful Waiting in Acute Otitis Media

BACKGROUND

American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for acute otitis media (AOM) allow for children meeting certain criteria to undergo watchful waiting (WW). The cost-effectiveness of this policy has not been evaluated in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a random selection of 250 patients ≤18 years old with AOM in the emergency department of a tertiary care children's hospital was used to characterize current practice of AOM management. These data were incorporated into a decision-analytic cost-utility model comparing the cost-effectiveness of implementing WW to current practice. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed in 2015 USD per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted from a societal perspective. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

From this cohort, chart review confirmed 247 actually had AOM on physical examination. Of these, 231 (93.5%) were prescribed antibiotics, 7 (2.8%) underwent WW, and 9 (3.6%) were sent home without an antibiotic prescription. When American Academy of Pediatrics criteria for WW were applied to this population, 104 patients (42.1%) met conditions for immediate antibiotic prescription, and 143 patients (57.9%) qualified for WW. In our modeled scenario, for every 1000 patients with AOM, implementing WW yielded 514 fewer immediate antibiotic prescriptions and 205 fewer antibiotic prescriptions used, averting 14.3 DALYs, and saving $5573. The preferability of WW over current practice proved highly robust to sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

WW for AOM management is cost-effective. Implementing WW may improve outcomes and reduce health care expenditures.

Incidence and economic burden of acute otitis media in children aged up to 5years in three Middle Eastern countries and Pakistan: A multinational, retrospective, observational study

Epidemiological data on acute otitis media (AOM), an infectious disease frequently affecting children, are lacking in some countries. This study was undertaken to assess the incidence of AOM in children ≤5 years in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, and Turkey, as well as the economic burden from a parent/caregiver perspective. Medical records of 4043 children (Saudi Arabia = 1023, Oman = 998, Pakistan = 1022, Turkey = 1000) were retrospectively reviewed and the incidence of AOM episodes calculated from suspected and confirmed cases. Using a standardized Health Economics Questionnaire, parents recorded resource use and expenses incurred per AOM episode [in local currency and converted to US dollars (USD)]. The overall incidence of AOM episodes per 1000 person–years was: Saudi Arabia, 207 [95% confidence interval (CI): 178–238]; Oman, 105 (95% CI: 85–127); Pakistan, 138 (95% CI: 116–163); and Turkey, 99 (95% CI: 79–123). The mean total out-of-pocket healthcare expense incurred by parents/caregivers per episode was: Saudi Arabia USD67.1 [standard deviation (SD) = 93.0], Oman USD16.1 (SD = 16.4), Pakistan USD22.1 (SD = 20.5), and Turkey USD33.6 (SD = 44.9). The incidence of AOM episodes varied across all four countries, probably due to different diagnostic and management practices. Nevertheless, our results confirm that AOM causes a substantial burden to public health, reinforcing the need for cost-effective prevention strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of epinephrine and dexamethasone in children with bronchiolitis

OBJECTIVE

Using data from the Canadian Bronchiolitis Epinephrine Steroid Trial we assessed the cost-effectiveness of treatments with epinephrine and dexamethasone for infants between 6 weeks and 12 months of age with bronchiolitis.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted from both the societal and health care system perspectives including all costs during 22 days after enrollment. The effectiveness of therapy was measured by the duration of symptoms of feeding problems, sleeping problems, coughing, and noisy breathing. Comparators were nebulized epinephrine plus oral dexamethasone, nebulized epinephrine alone, oral dexamethasone alone, and no active treatment. Uncertainty around estimates was assessed through nonparametric bootstrapping.

RESULTS

The combination of nebulized epinephrine plus oral dexamethasone was dominant over the other 3 comparators in that it was both the most effective and least costly. Average societal costs were $1115 (95% credible interval [CI]: 919-1325) for the combination therapy, $1210 (95% CI: 1004-1441) for no active treatment, $1322 (95% CI: 1093-1571) for epinephrine alone, and $1360 (95% CI: 1124-1624) for dexamethasone alone. The average time to curtailment of all symptoms was 12.1 days (95% CI: 11-13) for the combination therapy, 12.7 days (95% CI: 12-13) for no active treatment, 13.0 days (95% CI: 12-14) for epinephrine alone, and 12.6 days (95% CI: 12-13) for dexamethasone alone.

CONCLUSION

Treating infants with bronchiolitis with a combination of nebulized epinephrine plus oral dexamethasone is the most cost-effective treatment option, because it is the most effective in controlling symptoms and is associated with the least costs.