Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with an explanation of the support in the literature, the evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life. (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related quality of life at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Plain Language Summary: Age-Related Hearing Loss.

The plain language summary explains age-related hearing loss to patients, families, and care partners. The summary is for any patient aged 50 years and older, families, and care partners. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for clinicians. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Plain Language Summary: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

The plain language summary explains allergen immunotherapy to patients, families, and caregivers. The summary is for patients aged 5 years and older who are experiencing symptoms from inhalant allergies and are considering immunotherapy as a treatment option. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for health care providers. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Expert Consensus Statement: Management of Dysphagia in Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an expert consensus statement (ECS) on the management of dysphagia in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients to address controversies and offer opportunities for quality improvement. Dysphagia in HNC was defined as swallowing impairment in patients with cancers of the nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx. METHODS: Development group members with expertise in dysphagia followed established guidelines for developing ECS. A professional search strategist systematically reviewed the literature, and the best available evidence was used to compose consensus statements targeted at providers managing dysphagia in adult HNC populations. The development group prioritized topics where there was significant practice variation and topics that would improve the quality of HNC patient care if consensus were possible. RESULTS: The development group identified 60 candidate consensus statements, based on 75 initial proposed topics and questions, that focused on addressing the following high yield topics: (1) risk factors, (2) screening, (3) evaluation, (4) prevention, (5) interventions, and (6) surveillance. After 2 iterations of the Delphi survey and the removal of duplicative statements, 48 statements met the standardized definition for consensus; 12 statements were designated as no consensus. CONCLUSION: Expert consensus was achieved for 48 statements pertaining to risk factors, screening, evaluation, prevention, intervention, and surveillance for dysphagia in HNC patients. Clinicians can use these statements to improve quality of care, inform policy and protocols, and appreciate areas where there is no consensus. Future research, ideally randomized controlled trials, is warranted to address additional controversies related to dysphagia in HNC patients.

Expert Consensus Statement: Management of Pediatric Persistent Obstructive Sleep Apnea After Adenotonsillectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an expert consensus statement regarding persistent pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) focused on quality improvement and clarification of controversies. Persistent OSA was defined as OSA after adenotonsillectomy or OSA after tonsillectomy when adenoids are not enlarged. METHODS: An expert panel of clinicians, nominated by stakeholder organizations, used the published consensus statement methodology from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery to develop statements for a target population of children aged 2-18 years. A medical librarian systematically searched the literature used as a basis for the clinical statements. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion and compose statements that met a standardized definition of consensus. Duplicate statements were combined prior to the final Delphi survey. RESULTS: After 3 iterative Delphi surveys, 34 statements met the criteria for consensus, while 18 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 7 categories: general, patient assessment, management of patients with obesity, medical management, drug-induced sleep endoscopy, surgical management, and postoperative care. CONCLUSION: The panel reached a consensus for 34 statements related to the assessment, management and postoperative care of children with persistent OSA. These statements can be used to establish care algorithms, improve clinical care, and identify areas that would benefit from future research.

Quality Improvement in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: Developing Registry-Enabled Quality Measures From Guidelines for Cerumen Impaction and Allergic Rhinitis Through a Transparent and Systematic Process.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE: Quality measurement can drive improvement in clinical care and allow for easy reporting of quality care by clinicians, but creating quality measures is a time-consuming and costly process. ECRI (formerly Emergency Care Research Institute) has pioneered a process to support systematic translation of clinical practice guidelines into electronic quality measures using a transparent and reproducible pathway. This process could be used to augment or support the development of electronic quality measures of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) and others as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitions from the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) to the MIPS Value Pathways for quality reporting. METHODS: We used a transparent and reproducible process to create electronic quality measures based on recommendations from 2 AAO-HNSF clinical practice guidelines (cerumen impaction and allergic rhinitis). Steps of this process include source material review, electronic content extraction, logic development, implementation barrier analysis, content encoding and structuring, and measure formalization. Proposed measures then go through the standard publication process for AAO-HNSF measures. RESULTS: The 2 guidelines contained 29 recommendation statements, of which 7 were translated into electronic quality measures and published. Intermediate products of the guideline conversion process facilitated development and were retained to support review, updating, and transparency. Of the 7 initially published quality measures, 6 were approved as 2018 MIPS measures, and 2 continued to demonstrate a gap in care after a year of data collection. CONCLUSION: Developing high-quality, registry-enabled measures from guidelines via a rigorous reproducible process is feasible. The streamlined process was effective in producing quality measures for publication in a timely fashion. Efforts to better identify gaps in care and more quickly recognize recommendations that would not translate well into quality measures could further streamline this process.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid use disorder (OUD), which includes the morbidity of dependence and mortality of overdose, has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Overprescription of opioids can lead to chronic use and misuse, and unused narcotics after surgery can lead to their diversion. Research supports that most patients do not take all the prescribed opioids after surgery and that surgeons are the second largest prescribers of opioids in the United States. The introduction of opioids in those with OUD often begins with prescription opioids. Reducing the number of extra opioids available after surgery through smaller prescriptions, safe storage, and disposal should reduce the risk of opioid use disorder in otolaryngology patients and their families. PURPOSE: The purpose of this specialty-specific guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in postoperative pain management of common otolaryngologic surgical procedures. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. Employing these action statements should reduce the variation in care across the specialty and improve postoperative pain control while reducing risk of OUD. The target patients for the guideline are any patients treated for anticipated or reported pain within the first 30 days after undergoing common otolaryngologic procedures. The target audience of the guideline is otolaryngologists who perform surgery and clinicians who manage pain after surgical procedures. Outcomes to be considered include whether the patient has stopped using opioids, has disposed of unused opioids, and was satisfied with the pain management plan.The guideline addresses assessment of the patient for OUD risk factors, counseling on pain expectations, and identifying factors that can affect pain duration and/or severity. It also discusses the use of multimodal analgesia as first-line treatment and the responsible use of opioids. Last, safe disposal of unused opioids is discussed.This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not a comprehensive guide on pain management in otolaryngologic procedures. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experiences and assessments of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements: (3A) prior to surgery, clinicians should identify risk factors for opioid use disorder when analgesia using opioids is anticipated; (6) clinicians should advocate for nonopioid medications as first-line management of pain after otolaryngologic surgery; (9) clinicians should recommend that patients (or their caregivers) store prescribed opioids securely and dispose of unused opioids through take-back programs or another accepted method.The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) prior to surgery, clinicians should advise patients and others involved in the postoperative care about the expected duration and severity of pain; (2) prior to surgery, clinicians should gather information specific to the patient that modifies severity and/or duration of pain; (3B) in patients at risk for OUD, clinicians should evaluate the need to modify the analgesia plan; (4) clinicians should promote shared decision making by informing patients of the benefits and risks of postoperative pain treatments that include nonopioid analgesics, opioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic interventions; (5) clinicians should develop a multimodal treatment plan for managing postoperative pain; (7) when treating postoperative pain with opioids, clinicians should limit therapy to the lowest effective dose and the shortest duration; (8A) clinicians should instruct patients and caregivers how to communicate if pain is not controlled or if medication side effects occur; (8B) clinicians should educate patients to stop opioids when pain is controlled with nonopioids and stop all analgesics when pain has resolved; (10) clinicians should inquire, within 30 days of surgery, whether the patient has stopped using opioids, has disposed of unused opioids, and was satisfied with the pain management plan.