Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Osia System to Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices in Sweden

Objectives: Bone conduction devices (BCD) have been commercially available since the 1980s for patients with conductive hearing loss (CHL), mixed hearing loss (MHL), or single-sided deafness (SSD). BCDs significantly improve the hearing capacity of patients regardless of age, which has a positive impact on their quality of life, mental health, education, and work performance. BCDs are categorized as percutaneous or transcutaneous solutions based on the attachment method. Selecting the optimal solution for patients requires consideration of audiological outcomes, guidelines, safety, patient preferences, and costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an active transcutaneous solution (Osia System, Cochlear Ltd.) compared with percutaneous solutions to treat adult patients in Sweden. Materials and methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of adult patients aged 59 years or older receiving Osia or percutaneous BCDs. The model considered 3 health states: patients who have received a BCD, patients without a device due to explantation (without reimplantation) or elective device non-use, and an absorbing state (death). The final state was based on age-dependent mortality, assuming hearing loss does not impact mortality. Probabilities were determined for transition between the health states with 6-month cycles and a lifetime horizon. Utility scores for each health state were derived from published literature using the Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3). Complication rates were also sourced from the literature, and the cost of complications and implantation from the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden, Socialstyrelsen. The perspective of the model was the Swedish health care system, and the main outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Results: Osia was associated with an increase in cost of 79,293 SEK and an increase in QALYs of 0.73 compared with percutaneous devices, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 108,318 SEK per QALY gained. The main drivers of cost-effectiveness were baseline age, the cost of surgery, and the difference in utility scores between the two interventions. The differences in HUI3 scores may be linked to the reduced risk of complications, improved cosmetic appearance, and improved hearing with Osia. Conclusions: Osia is cost-effective compared with percutaneous devices over a lifetime horizon, when applying low to moderate cost per QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds indicated by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. This analysis provides information on the economic impact of different hearing solutions to support decisions on which BCD best meets the needs of patients and health care budgets.