A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no). DESIGN: We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider. RESULTS: All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9-57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA.

BACKGROUND: While 60% of older adults have hearing loss (HL), the majority have never had their hearing tested. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate long-term clinical and economic effects of alternative adult hearing screening schedules in the USA. DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis simulating Current Detection (CD) and linkage of persons with HL to hearing healthcare, compared to alternative screening schedules varying by age at first screen (45 to 75 years) and screening frequency (every 1 or 5 years). Simulated persons experience yearly age- and sex-specific probabilities of acquiring HL, and subsequent hearing aid uptake (0.5-8%/year) and discontinuation (13-4%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated according to hearing level and treatment status. Costs from a health system perspective include screening ($30-120; 2020 USD), HL diagnosis ($300), and hearing aid devices ($3690 year 1, $910/subsequent year). Data sources were published estimates from NHANES and clinical trials of adult hearing screening. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-year-old persons in US primary care across their lifetime. INTERVENTION: Alternative screening schedules that increase baseline probabilities of hearing aid uptake (base-case 1.62-fold; range 1.05-2.25-fold). MAIN MEASURES: Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/year) costs and QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). KEY RESULTS: CD resulted in 1.20 average person-years of hearing aid use compared to 1.27-1.68 with the screening schedules. Lifetime total per-person undiscounted costs were $3300 for CD and ranged from $3630 for 5-yearly screening beginning at age 75 to $6490 for yearly screening beginning at age 45. In cost-effectiveness analysis, yearly screening beginning at ages 75, 65, and 55 years had ICERs of $39,100/QALY, $48,900/QALY, and $96,900/QALY, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variations in hearing aid utility benefit and screening effectiveness. LIMITATION: Input uncertainty around screening effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We project that yearly hearing screening beginning at age 55+ is cost-effective by US standards.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office. METHODS: Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

The Association Between Hearing Loss and Surgical Complications in Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to evaluate whether older patients with hearing loss who underwent surgery were at greater risk of postsurgical complications, increased inpatient length-of-stay (LOS), and hospital readmission. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving surgery at a tertiary medical center. Utilizing electronic health record data from two merged datasets, we identified patients 65 years and older, undergoing major surgery between January 1, 2014 and January 31, 2017, and who had audiometric evaluation before surgery. Patients were classified as having either normal hearing or hearing loss based on pure-tone average in the better ear. A Generalized Estimating Equations approach was used to fit multivariable regression models for outcome variables of interest. RESULTS: Of patients ≥65 years undergoing major surgery in our time frame, a total of 742 surgical procedures were performed on 621 patients with available audiometric data. After adjusting for age, sex, race, and comorbidities, hearing loss was associated with an increase in the odds of developing postoperative complications. Every 10 dB increase in hearing loss was associated with a 14% increase in the odds of developing a postoperative complication (odds ratio = 1.14, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.29, p = 0.031). Hearing loss was not significantly associated with increased hospital LOS, 30-day readmission, or 90-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing loss was significantly associated with developing postoperative complications in older adults undergoing major surgery. Screening for hearing impairment may be a useful addition to the preoperative assessment and perioperative management of older patients undergoing surgery.

Association between Hyperbilirubinemia and Hearing Screen Failure in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Infants Born Preterm.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the association between hyperbilirubinemia and a failed newborn hearing screen in infants born at 22-32 weeks of gestation. STUDY DESIGN: We included infants with gestational ages of 22-32 weeks who were discharged from neonatal intensive care units in the US from 2002 to 2017 with available newborn hearing screen results obtained after 34 weeks postmenstrual age. We excluded infants with severe birth asphyxia or craniofacial abnormalities. We identified 95 672 infants from 313 neonatal intensive care units. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between maximum total bilirubin at <21 days postnatal age with failed hearing screen, adjusting for important demographic and clinical risk factors. RESULTS: The median gestational age and birth weight were 30 weeks (IQR, 28-32 weeks) and 1330 g (IQR, 1010-1630 g), respectively. The median maximum total bilirubin was 8.3 mg/dL (IQR, 6.7-10.0 mg/dL), and 5275 infants (6%) failed their newborn hearing screen. On adjusted analysis, each 1 mg/dL increase in maximum total bilirubin was associated with a small, but significant, increase in odds of a failed hearing screen (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). CONCLUSIONS: An increased maximum total bilirubin level was independently associated with hearing screen failure. Further prospective studies are needed to understand whether this increased risk of hearing screen failure translates to increased risk of hearing loss.

Aminoglycoside-induced Hearing Loss Among Patients Being Treated for Drug-resistant Tuberculosis in South Africa: A Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: Individuals treated for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) with aminoglycosides (AGs) in resource-limited settings often experience permanent hearing loss, yet there is no practical method to identify those at higher risk. We sought to develop a clinical prediction model of AG-induced hearing loss among patients initiating DR-TB treatment in South Africa. METHODS: Using nested, prospective data from a cohort of 379 South African adults being treated for confirmed DR-TB with AG-based regimens we developed the prediction model using multiple logistic regression. Predictors were collected from clinical, audiological, and laboratory evaluations conducted at the initiation of DR-TB treatment. The outcome of AG-induced hearing loss was identified from audiometric and clinical evaluation by a worsened hearing threshold compared with baseline during the 6-month intensive phase. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of participants (n = 238) developed any level of hearing loss. The model predicting hearing loss at frequencies from 250 to 8000 Hz included weekly AG dose, human immunodeficiency virus status with CD4 count, age, serum albumin, body mass index, and pre-existing hearing loss. This model demonstrated reasonable discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.71) and calibration (χ2[8] = 6.10, P = .636). Using a cutoff of 80% predicted probability of hearing loss, the positive predictive value of this model was 83% and negative predictive value was 40%. Model discrimination was similar for ultrahigh-frequency hearing loss (frequencies >9000 Hz; AUC = 0.81) but weaker for clinically determined hearing loss (AUC = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: This model may identify patients with DR-TB who are at highest risk of developing AG-induced ototoxicity and may help prioritize patients for AG-sparing regimens in clinical settings where access is limited.

Comparative implementation-effectiveness of three strategies to perform hearing screening among older adults in primary care clinics: study design and protocol.

BACKGROUND: The burden of hearing loss among older adults could be mitigated with appropriate care. This study compares implementation of three hearing screening strategies in primary care, and examines the reliability and validity of patient self-assessment, primary care providers (PCP) and diagnostic audiologists in the identification of 'red flag' conditions (those conditions that may require medical consultation and/or intervention). METHODS: Six primary care practices will implement one of three screening strategies (2 practices per strategy) with 660 patients (220 per strategy) ages 65-75 years with no history of hearing aid use or diagnosis of hearing loss. Strategies differ on the location and use of PCP encouragement to complete a telephone-based hearing screen (tele-HS). Group 1: instructions for tele-HS to complete at home and educational materials on warning signs and consequences of hearing loss. Group 2: PCP counseling/encouragement on importance of hearing screening, instructions to take the tele-HS from home, educational materials. Group 3: PCP counseling/encouragement, in-office tele-HS, and educational materials. Patients from all groups who fail the tele-HS will be referred for diagnostic audiological testing and medical evaluation, and complete a self-assessment of red flag conditions at this follow-up appointment. Due to the expected low incidence of ear disease in the PCP cohort, we will enroll a complementary population of patients (N = 500) from selected otolaryngology head and neck surgery clinics in a national practice-based research network to increase the likelihood of occurrence of medical conditions that might contraindicate hearing aid fitting. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who complete the tele-HS within 2 months of the PCP appointment comparing Group 3 (PCP encouragement, in-office tele-HS, education) versus Groups 2 and 1 (education and tele-HS at home, with and without PCP encouragement, respectively). The several secondary outcomes include direct and indirect costs, patient, family and provider attitudes of hearing healthcare, and accuracy of red flag condition evaluations compared with expert medical assessment by an otolaryngology provider. DISCUSSION: Determining the relative effectiveness of three different strategies for hearing screening in primary care and the assessment accuracy of red flag conditions can each lead to practice and policy changes that will reduce individual, family and societal burden from hearing loss among older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928107; 10/10/2016 protocol version 1.

Adverse outcome pathway for aminoglycoside ototoxicity in drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment.

Individuals treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) with aminoglycosides (AGs) in resource-limited settings often experience permanent hearing loss. However, AG ototoxicity has never been conceptually integrated or causally linked to MDR-TB patients' pre-treatment health condition. We sought to develop a framework that examines the relationships between pre-treatment conditions and AG-induced hearing loss among MDR-TB-infected individuals in sub-Saharan Africa. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) approach was used to develop a framework linking key events (KEs) within a biological pathway that results in adverse outcomes (AO), which are associated with chemical perturbation of a molecular initiating event (MIE). This AOP describes pathways initiating from AG accumulation in hair cells, sound transducers of the inner ear immediately after AG administration. After administration, the drug catalyzes cellular oxidative stress due to overproduction of reactive oxygen species. Since oxidative stress inhibits mitochondrial protein synthesis, hair cells undergo apoptotic cell death, resulting in irreversible hearing loss (AO). We identified the following pre-treatment conditions that worsen the causal linkage between MIE and AO: HIV, malnutrition, aging, noise, smoking, and alcohol use. The KEs are: (1) nephrotoxicity, pre-existing hearing loss, and hypoalbuminemia that catalyzes AG accumulation; (2) immunodeficiency and antioxidant deficiency that trigger oxidative stress pathways; and (3) co-administration of mitochondrial toxic drugs that hinder mitochondrial protein synthesis, causing apoptosis. This AOP clearly warrants the development of personalized interventions for patients undergoing MDR-TB treatment. Such interventions (i.e., choosing less ototoxic drugs, scheduling frequent monitoring, modifying nutritional status, avoiding poly-pharmacy) will be required to limit the burden of AG ototoxicity.

Rehabilitation and Psychosocial Determinants of Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Older Adults.

OBJECTIVE: The cochlear implant (CI) has been shown to be associated with better hearing, cognitive abilities, and functional independence. There is variability however in how much benefit each recipient derives from his or her CI. This study's primary objective is to determine the effects of individual and environmental characteristics on CI outcomes. DESIGN: Seventy-six adults who developed postlingual severe to profound hearing loss and received their first unilateral CI at 65 years and older were eligible for the study. Fifty-five patients were asked to participate and the 33 (60%) with complete data were classified as "group 1." The remaining patients were placed in "group 2." Primary outcomes included changes in quality of life and open-set speech perception scores. Independent variables included age, health status, trait emotional intelligence (EI), comfort with technology, and living arrangements. Survey outcomes and audiological measurements were collected prospectively at 12 months after surgery, whereas preoperative data were collected retrospectively. Comparisons between groups 1 and 2 were made. Wilcoxon signed rank test, Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney tests, Chi-square tests, and linear regressions were performed only on group 1 data. RESULTS: Having a CI was associated with improved quality of life and speech perception. Familiarity with electronic tablets was associated with increased 12-month postoperative AzBio gains when adjusted for preoperative AzBio scores (adjusted p = 0.019), but only marginally significant when a family-wise error correction was applied (p = 0.057). Furthermore, patients who lived with other people scored at least 20 points higher on the AzBio sentences than those who lived alone (adjusted p = 0.046). Finally, consultation with an auditory rehabilitation therapist was associated with higher self-reported quality of life (p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that in a cohort of older patients cochlear implantation is associated with a meaningful increase in both quality of life and speech perception. Furthermore, it suggests the potential importance of adjunct support and services, including the tailoring of CI rehabilitation sessions depending on the patient's familiarity with technology and living situation. Investment in rehabilitation and other services is associated with improvements in quality of life and may mitigate clinical, individual and social risk factors for poor communication outcome.

Assessment of health-related quality of life 6 years after childhood cochlear implantation.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of cochlear implant (CI) intervention on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by both self- and parent-reported measures. METHODS: In this national study of children implanted between ages 6 months and 5 years, HRQOL of 129 children 6-year post-CI was compared to 62 internal study (NH1) and 185 external (NH2) samples of hearing children frequency-matched to the CI group on sociodemographic variables. HRQOL ratings of children and their parents in each group, measured using the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition, were compared, and their associations with the Family Stress Scale were investigated. RESULTS: CI children reported overall and domain-specific HRQOL that was comparable to both NH1 and NH2 peers. CI parents reported worse child scores than NH1 parents in Achievement, Resilience, and Global score (p's < 0.01) but similar or better scores than socioeconomically comparable NH2 parents. Higher family stress was negatively associated with all parent-reported HRQOL outcomes (p's < 0.01). Parent-child correlations in HRQOL global scores trended higher in CI recipients (r = 0.50) than NH1 (r = 0.42) and NH2 (r = 0.35) controls. CONCLUSIONS: CI recipients report HRQOL comparable to NH peers. These results, from both child and parent perspective, lend support to the effectiveness of CI intervention in mitigating the impact of early childhood deafness. Family stress was associated with worse HRQOL, underscoring a potential therapeutic target. Parent-child agreement in HRQOL scores was higher for CI families than NH families, which may reflect higher caregiver insight and involvement related to the CI intervention.

Sponsorship in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: A Pathway to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.

Importance: Sponsorship, distinct from mentorship or coaching, involves advancing the careers of individuals by nominating them for roles, increasing the visibility of their work, or facilitating opportunities. Sponsorship can open doors and enhance diversity; however, achieving desirable outcomes requires equitable approaches to cultivating potential in sponsees and promoting their success. The evidence on equitable sponsorship practices has not been critically examined, and this special communication reviews the literature, highlighting best practices. Observations: Sponsorship addresses an unmet need for supporting individuals who have historically been afforded fewer, less visible, or less effective opportunities for upward career mobility. Barriers to equitable sponsorship include the paucity of sponsors of underrepresented identity; smaller and underdeveloped networks among these sponsors; lack of transparent, intentional sponsorship processes; and structural inequities that are associated with recruitment, retention, and advancement of diverse individuals. Strategies to enhance equitable sponsorship are cross-functional, building on foundational principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion; patient safety and quality improvement; and insights from education and business. Equity, diversity, and inclusion principles inform training on implicit bias, cross-cultural communication, and intersectional mentoring. Practices inspired by patient safety and quality improvement emphasize continuously improving outreach to diverse candidates. Education and business insights emphasize minimizing cognitive errors, appreciating the bidirectional character of interactions, and ensuring that individuals are prepared for and supported in new roles. Collectively, these principles provide a framework for sponsorship. Persistent knowledge gaps are associated with timing, resources, and systems for sponsorship. Conclusions and Relevance: The nascent literature on sponsorship is limited but draws on best practices from various disciplines and has potential to promote diversity within the profession. Strategies include developing systematic approaches, providing effective training, and supporting a culture of sponsorship. Future research is needed to define best practices for identifying sponsees, cultivating sponsors, tracking outcomes, and fostering longitudinal practices that are sustainable at local, regional, and national levels.

Prognosis of Acute Low-Tone Hearing Loss Without Vertigo: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Despite its relatively high prevalence, our understanding of the natural clinical course of acute low-tone hearing loss (ALHL) without vertigo remains incomplete. The purpose of this study is to summarize the findings of studies that evaluated recovery from hearing loss (HL), recurrence and/or fluctuation of HL, and progression to Meniere's Disease (MD) of patients presenting with ALHL without vertigo. METHODS: A scoping review of the English literature was performed. On May 14, 2020 and July 6, 2022, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched to identify articles related to the prognosis of ALHL. To be included, articles had to present outcomes that were clearly distinguishable for patients with ALHL without vertigo. Two reviewers evaluated articles for inclusion and extracted data. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included. There was extensive heterogeneity between studies in regard to defining ALHL, treatment methods, and time of follow-up. Most of the cohorts (39 out of 40) reported partial or complete recovery of hearing in the majority (>50%) of patients, although reports of recurrence were relatively common. Progression to MD was infrequently reported. Shorter time from onset of symptoms to treatment predicted better hearing outcomes in 6 of 8 studies. CONCLUSION: The literature suggests that although the majority of patients with ALHL experience hearing improvement, recurrence and/or fluctuation are common, and progression to MD occurs in a minority of patients. Additional trials utilizing standardized inclusion and outcome criteria are needed to determine the ideal treatment for ALHL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 133:2457-2469, 2023.

Translabyrinthine Craniotomy Is Associated with Higher Risk of Asymptomatic Dural Venous Sinus Thrombosis in Vestibular Schwannoma Resection.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize the incidence, risk factors, and patient outcomes of dural venous sinus thrombosis identified on postoperative imaging after retrosigmoid or translabyrinthine craniotomy for vestibular schwannoma resection. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary academic referral center. PATIENTS: Eighty-one patients 19 to 82 years of age with vestibular schwannomas, 58% female. INTERVENTIONS: Retrosigmoid or translabyrinthine craniotomy with postoperative magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance venography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Association between operative approach, age, sex, body mass index, tumor size, dominant sinus, operative time, laterality, and perioperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks with rate of thrombosis. RESULTS: Translabyrinthine craniotomy was associated with the highest relative risk of thrombosis (odds ratios [OR] = 19.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.75-224, p = 0.007), followed by male sex (OR = 5.53, 95% CI = 1.63-18.8, p = 0.035). Other patient and demographic risk factors were not associated with increased rates of dural venous thrombosis, nor was there an association with postoperative CSF leak. 81% (25/31) of thrombi had resolved within 3 years of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Translabyrinthine approach and male sex most strongly predicted postoperative dural venous thrombosis after postauricular craniotomy for vestibular schwannoma resection. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GAP AND EDUCATIONAL NEED: Better understanding of risk factors and management of dural venous thrombosis after vestibular schwannoma surgery. LEARNING OBJECTIVE: Characterize clinically significant risk factors for dural venous thrombosis in vestibular schwannoma surgery. DESIRED RESULT: Identification of patient and operative risk factors for dural venous thrombosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. INDICATE IRB OR IACUC: Exempt.

Potential Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids in the US.

Importance: Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are now available in the US; however, their clinical and economic outcomes are unknown. Objective: To project the clinical and economic outcomes of traditional hearing aid provision compared with OTC hearing aid provision. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness analysis used a previously validated decision model of hearing loss (HL) to simulate US adults aged 40 years and older across their lifetime in US primary care offices who experienced yearly probabilities of acquiring HL (0.1%-10.4%), worsening of their HL, and traditional hearing aid uptake (0.5%-8.1%/y at a fixed uptake cost of $3690) and utility benefits (0.11 additional utils/y). For OTC hearing aid provision, persons with perceived mild to moderate HL experienced increased OTC hearing aid uptake (1%-16%/y) based on estimates of time to first HL diagnosis. In the base case, OTC hearing aid utility benefits ranged from 0.05 to 0.11 additional utils/y (45%-100% of traditional hearing aids), and costs were $200 to $1400 (5%-38% of traditional hearing aids). Distributions were assigned to parameters to conduct probabilistic uncertainty analysis. Intervention: Provision of OTC hearing aids, at increased uptake rates, across a range of effectiveness and costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/y) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Traditional hearing aid provision resulted in 18.162 QALYs, compared with 18.162 to 18.186 for OTC hearing aids varying with OTC hearing aid utility benefit (45%-100% that of traditional hearing aids). Provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater lifetime discounted costs by $70 to $200 along with OTC device cost ($200-$1000/pair; 5%-38% traditional hearing aid cost) due to increased hearing aid uptake. Provision of OTC hearing aids was considered cost-effective (ICER<$100 000/QALY) if the OTC utility benefit was 0.06 or greater (55% of the traditional hearing aid effectiveness). In probabilistic uncertainty analysis, OTC hearing aid provision was cost-effective in 53% of simulations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater uptake of hearing intervention and was cost-effective over a range of prices so long as OTC hearing aids were greater than 55% as beneficial to patient quality of life as traditional hearing aids.

How the Past Shapes the Future and What to Do About It: A Discussion at CI 2021 Virtual With Panelists: Teresa Caraway, Ph.D., C.C.C.-S.L.P.; Cliff Megerian, M.D.; Debara Tucci, M.D., M.S., M.B.A.; Peter Thomas, J.D.; Jason Wigand, Au.D.

ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the highlights of a lively discussion between leaders in the cochlear implant (CI) field who also bring significant leadership experience at the practice and health system levels, as well as policy and research perspectives. The discussion revealed several areas in which established patterns of practice should be reconsidered to facilitate wider acceptance of the CI as part of an integrated continuum of hearing healthcare. The importance of continued innovation to advance outcomes, lower cost, and increase access was emphasized. Trends in healthcare funding, which increasingly reward quality at lower cost, will also challenge longstanding assumptions that have influenced program design. Proactive efforts that pursue consistent value in the episode of surgical care while establishing innovative delivery models for audiological and rehabilitation services are the best hope for a future of equitable access and expanding impact.

Vein Graft Tympanoplasty: How a Transiently Used Graft Material Transformed Middle Ear Surgery.

The inception of medial grafting as a technique for tympanic membrane repair was a critical milestone in the history of otology. John Shea introduced the medial graft technique and the use of vein grafts for tympanoplasty in 1960 after realizing that the vein grafts that he used to repair the oval window after stapedectomy could also be utilized to repair tympanic membrane perforations. At the time, tympanoplasty often utilized skin grafts, which required placement of the graft lateral to the tympanic membrane annulus. Placement of the graft medial to the tympanic membrane annulus allowed for more efficient surgery and avoided the complications associated with lateral grafting, such as blunting and lateralization. The introduction of vein grafts in tympanoplasty prompted a fundamental shift in technique from lateral to medial grafting, paving the way for decades of innovation in tympanoplasty.

Estimated Monetary Value of Future Research Clarifying Uncertainties Around the Optimal Adult Hearing Screening Schedule.

Importance: Adult hearing screening is not routinely performed, and most individuals with hearing loss (HL) have never had their hearing tested as adults. Objective: To project the monetary value of future research clarifying uncertainties around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a validated decision model of HL (DeciBHAL-US: Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan) was used to simulate current detection and treatment of HL vs hearing screening schedules. Key model inputs included HL incidence (0.06%-10.42%/y), hearing aid uptake (0.54%-8.14%/y), screening effectiveness (1.62 × hearing aid uptake), utility benefits of hearing aids (+0.11), and hearing aid device costs ($3690). Distributions to model parameters for probabilistic uncertainty analysis were assigned. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) using a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated. The EVPI and EVPPI estimate the upper bound of the dollar value of future research. This study was based on 40-year-old persons over their remaining lifetimes in a US primary care setting. Exposures: Screening schedules beginning at ages 45, 55, 65, and 75 years, and frequencies of every 1 or 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were QALYs and costs (2020 US dollars) from a health system perspective. Results: The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for yearly screening beginning at ages 55 to 75 years ranged from $39 200 to $80 200/QALY. Yearly screening beginning at age 55 years was the optimal screening schedule in 38% of probabilistic uncertainty analysis simulations. The population EVPI, or value of reducing all uncertainty, was $8.2 to $12.6 billion varying with willingness to pay and the EVPPI, or value of reducing all screening effectiveness uncertainty, was $2.4 billion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of US adult hearing screening, large uncertainty around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule was identified. Future research on hearing screening has a high potential value so is likely justified.

Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts: Stepping-stones to Innovation and Equity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

The Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program coordinates research funding initiatives across the subspecialties of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Modeled after National Institutes of Health study sections, CORE grant review processes provide comprehensive reviews of scientific proposals. The organizational structure and grant review process support grant-writing skills, attention to study design, and other components of academic maturation toward securing external grants from the National Institutes of Health or other agencies. As a learning community and a catalyst for scientific advances, CORE evaluates clinical, translational, basic science, and health services research. Amid the societal reckoning around long-standing social injustices and health inequities, an important question is to what extent CORE engenders diversity, equity, and inclusion for the otolaryngology workforce. This commentary explores CORE's track record as a stepping-stone for promoting equity and innovation in the specialty. Such insights can help maximize opportunities for cultivating diverse leaders across the career continuum.

Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology and the Communication Sciences.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI) is a burgeoning field in otolaryngology and the communication sciences. A virtual symposium on the topic was convened from Duke University on October 26, 2020, and was attended by more than 170 participants worldwide. This review presents summaries of all but one of the talks presented during the symposium; recordings of all the talks, along with the discussions for the talks, are available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktfewrXvEFg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gQ5qX2v3rg . Each of the summaries is about 2500 words in length and each summary includes two figures. This level of detail far exceeds the brief summaries presented in traditional reviews and thus provides a more-informed glimpse into the power and diversity of current AI applications in otolaryngology and the communication sciences and how to harness that power for future applications.

Development and validation of DeciBHAL-US: A novel microsimulation model of hearing loss across the lifespan in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss affects over 50% of people in the US across their lifespan and there is a lack of decision modeling frameworks to inform optimal hearing healthcare delivery. Our objective was to develop and validate a microsimulation model of hearing loss across the lifespan in the US. METHODS: We collaborated with the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss to outline model structure, identify input data sources, and calibrate/validate DeciBHAL-US (Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan). We populated the model with literature-based estimates and validated the conceptual model with key informants. We validated key model endpoints to the published literature, including: 1) natural history of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), 2) natural history of conductive hearing loss (CHL), and 3) the hearing loss cascade of care. We reported the coefficient of variance root mean square error (CV-RMSE), considering values ≤15% to indicate adequate fit. FINDINGS: For SNHL prevalence, the CV-RMSE for model projected male and female age-specific prevalence compared to sex-adjusted National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data was 4.9 and 5.7%, respectively. Incorporating literature-based age-related decline in SNHL, we validated mean four-frequency average hearing loss in the better ear (dB) among all persons to longitudinal data (CV-RMSE=11.3%). We validated the age-stratified prevalence of CHL to adjusted NHANES data (CV-RMSE=10.9%). We incorporated age- and severity-stratified time to first hearing aid (HA) use data and HA discontinuation data (adjusted for time-period of use) and validated to NHANES estimates on the prevalence of adult HA use (CV-RMSE=10.3%). INTERPRETATION: Our results indicate adequate model fit to internal and external validation data. Future incorporation of cost and severity-stratified utility data will allow for cost-effectiveness analysis of US hearing healthcare interventions across the lifespan. Further research might expand the modeling framework to international settings. FUNDING: This study was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the National Institute on Aging (3UL1-TR002553-03S3 and F30 DC019846).