Towards universal access: A review of global efforts in ear and hearing care.

Hearing loss affects 1.6 billion people worldwide and disproportionately affects those in low- and middle-income countries. Despite being largely preventable or treatable, ear and hearing conditions result in significant and lifelong morbidity such as delayed language development, reduced educational attainment, and diminished social well-being. There is a need to augment prevention, early identification, treatment, and rehabilitation for these conditions. Expanded access to hearing screening, growth of the hearing health workforce, and innovations in ear and hearing care delivery systems are among the changes that are needed. To that end, the World Health Organization has prioritized ear and hearing care as a component of Universal Health Coverage, and recent publications have advanced the priority for ear and hearing care. Efforts are underway at the national levels around the world, as evidenced by countries like Zambia and Nigeria that have integrated ear and hearing care within national health strategies. While significant strides have been made in improving access, a critical need remains for additional research, advocacy, and intervention to ensure that no one is left behind in the goal to achieve universal access to ear and hearing care.

Priorities for hearing loss prevention and estimates of global cause-specific burdens of hearing loss: a systematic rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss affects approximately 1·6 billion individuals worldwide. Many cases are preventable. We aimed to estimate the annual number of new hearing loss cases that could be attributed to meningitis, otitis media, congenital rubella syndrome, cytomegalovirus, and ototoxic medications, specifically aminoglycosides, platinum-based chemotherapeutics, and antimalarials. METHODS: We used a targeted and a rapid systematic literature review to calculate yearly global incidences of each cause of hearing loss. We estimated the prevalence of hearing loss for each presumed cause. For each cause, we calculated the global number of yearly hearing loss cases associated with the exposure by multiplying the estimated exposed population by the prevalence of hearing loss associated with the exposure, accounting for mortality when warranted. FINDINGS: An estimated 257·3 million people per year are exposed to these preventable causes of hearing loss, leading to an estimated 33·8 million new cases of hearing loss worldwide per year. Most hearing loss cases were among those with exposure to ototoxic medications (19·6 million [range 12·6 million-27·9 million] from short-course aminoglycoside therapy and 12·3 million from antimalarials). We estimated that 818 000 cases of hearing loss were caused by otitis media, 346 000 by meningitis, 114 000 by cytomegalovirus, and 59 000 by congenital rubella syndrome. INTERPRETATION: The global burden of preventable hearing loss is large. Hearing loss that is attributable to disease sequelae or ototoxic medications contributes substantially to the global burden of hearing loss. Prevention of these conditions should be a global health priority. FUNDING: The US National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the US National Institute on Aging.

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.

NIDCD's 5-Year Strategic Plan Describes Scientific Priorities and Commitment to Basic Science.

The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) recently issued a new strategic plan that describes the institute's scientific priorities over the next five years. Developed in collaboration with informed stakeholders, the 2023-2027 NIDCD Strategic Plan: Advancing the Science of Communication to Improve Lives creates a unified vision to stimulate discoveries in basic research, model systems, innovative technologies, individualized treatment approaches, scientific data sharing, and translation of research findings into clinical practice. To further accelerate scientific discoveries, the institute encourages collaborations and information sharing among interdisciplinary teams conducting research in these priority areas, and advocates for the utilization of biomedical databases to share scientific findings. NIDCD also welcomes investigator-driven applications that capitalize on advances in basic research to better understand normal and disordered processes; develop or improve model systems to inform research; or facilitate the use of biomedical data utilizing best practices. Through these efforts, NIDCD will continue to conduct and support research that improves the quality of life for the millions of American impacted by conditions affecting hearing, balance, taste, smell, voice, speech, or language.

The Impact of Hearing Loss and Its Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life Utility: a Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss significantly impacts health-related quality of life (QoL), yet the effects of current treatments on QoL utility remain uncertain. Our objective was to describe the impact of untreated and treated hearing loss on QoL utility to inform hearing healthcare policy. METHODS: We searched databases for articles published through 02/01/2021. Two independent reviewers screened for articles that reported elicitation of general QoL utility values for untreated and treated hearing loss health states. We extracted data and quality indicators from 62 studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Included studies predominately used observational pre/post designs (61%), evaluated unilateral cochlear implantation (65%), administered the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3; 71%), and were conducted in Europe and North America (84%). In general, treatment of hearing loss improved post-treatment QoL utility when measured by most methods except the Euro-QoL 5 dimension (EQ-5D). In meta-analysis, hearing aids for adult mild-to-moderate hearing loss compared to no treatment significantly improved HUI3-estimated QoL utility (3 studies; mean change=0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07 to 0.14) but did not impact EQ-5D-estimated QoL (3 studies; mean change=0.0; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04). Cochlear implants improved adult QoL utility 1-year post-implantation when measured by the HUI3 (7 studies; mean change=0.17; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.23); however, pediatric VAS-estimated QoL utility was non-significant (4 studies; mean change=0.12; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.25). The quality of included studies was limited by failure to report missingness of data and low survey response rates. Our study was limited by heterogeneous study populations and designs. FINDINGS: Treatment of hearing loss significantly improves QoL utility, and the HUI3 and VAS were most sensitive to improvements in hearing. Improved access to hearing healthcare should be prioritized. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021253314.

Over-the-counter Hearing Aids: From Research to Policy to Practice.

In this Viewpoint from officials at NIH and FDA, the authors discuss research collaborations between federal agencies and the private sector, using new regulations for over-the-counter hearing aids as an illustration.

Validation of the Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan (DeciBHAL) in Chile, India, and Nigeria.

Background: There is no published decision model for informing hearing health care resource allocation across the lifespan in low- and middle-income countries. We sought to validate the Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan International (DeciBHAL-I) in Chile, India, and Nigeria. Methods: DeciBHAL-I simulates bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL) acquisition, SNHL progression, and hearing loss treatment. To inform model inputs, we identified setting-specific estimates including SNHL prevalence from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies, acute otitis media (AOM) incidence and prevalence of otitis-media related CHL from a systematic review, and setting-specific pediatric and adult hearing aid use prevalence. We considered a coefficient of variance root mean square error (CV-RMSE) of ≤15% to indicate good model fit. Findings: The model-estimated prevalence of bilateral SNHL closely matched GBD estimates, (CV-RMSEs: 3.2-7.4%). Age-specific AOM incidences from DeciBHAL-I also achieved good fit (CV-RMSEs=5.0-7.5%). Model-projected chronic suppurative otitis media prevalence (1.5% in Chile, 4.9% in India, and 3.4% in Nigeria) was consistent with setting-specific estimates, and the incidence of otitis media-related CHL was calibrated to attain adequate model fit. DeciBHAL-projected adult hearing aid use in Chile (3.2-19.7% ages 65-85 years) was within the 95% confidence intervals of published estimates. Adult hearing aid prevalence from the model in India was 1.4-2.3%, and 1.1-1.3% in Nigeria, consistent with literature-based and expert estimates. Interpretation: DeciBHAL-I reasonably simulates hearing loss natural history, detection, and treatment in Chile, India, and Nigeria. Future cost-effectiveness analyses might use DeciBHAL-I to inform global hearing health policy. Funding: National Institutes of Health (3UL1-TR002553-03S3 and F30 DC019846).

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).

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).

Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a common and costly medical condition. This systematic review sought to identify evidence gaps in published model-based economic analyses addressing hearing loss to inform model development for an ongoing Lancet Commission. METHODS: We searched the published literature through 14 June 2020 and our inclusion criteria included decision model-based cost-effectiveness analyses that addressed diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of hearing loss. Two investigators screened articles for inclusion at the title, abstract, and full-text levels. Data were abstracted and the studies were assessed for the qualities of model structure, data assumptions, and reporting using a previously published quality scale. FINDINGS: Of 1437 articles identified by our search, 117 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these model-based analyses were set in high-income countries (n = 96, 82%). The evaluated interventions were hearing screening (n = 35, 30%), cochlear implantation (n = 34, 29%), hearing aid use (n = 28, 24%), vaccination (n = 22, 19%), and other interventions (n = 29, 25%); some studies included multiple interventions. Eighty-six studies reported the main outcome in quality-adjusted or disability-adjusted life-years, 24 of which derived their own utility values. The majority of the studies used decision tree (n = 72, 62%) or Markov (n = 41, 35%) models. Forty-one studies (35%) incorporated indirect economic effects. The median quality rating was 92/100 (IQR:72-100). INTERPRETATION: The review identified a large body of literature exploring the economic efficiency of hearing healthcare interventions. However, gaps in evidence remain in evaluation of hearing healthcare in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in investigating interventions across the lifespan. Additionally, considerable uncertainty remains around productivity benefits of hearing healthcare interventions as well as utility values for hearing-assisted health states. Future economic evaluations could address these limitations. FUNDING: NCATS 3UL1-TR002553-03S3.

AutoAudio: Deep Learning for Automatic Audiogram Interpretation.

Hearing loss is the leading human sensory system loss, and one of the leading causes for years lived with disability with significant effects on quality of life, social isolation, and overall health. Coupled with a forecast of increased hearing loss burden worldwide, national and international health organizations have urgently recommended that access to hearing evaluation be expanded to meet demand. The objective of this study was to develop 'AutoAudio' - a novel deep learning proof-of-concept model that accurately and quickly interprets diagnostic audiograms. Adult audiogram reports representing normal, conductive, mixed and sensorineural morphologies were used to train different neural network architectures. Image augmentation techniques were used to increase the training image set size. Classification accuracy on a separate test set was used to assess model performance. The architecture with the highest out-of-training set accuracy was ResNet-101 at 97.5%. Neural network training time varied between 2 to 7 h depending on the depth of the neural network architecture. Each neural network architecture produced misclassifications that arose from failures of the model to correctly label the audiogram with the appropriate hearing loss type. The most commonly misclassified hearing loss type were mixed losses. Re-engineering the process of hearing testing with a machine learning innovation may help enhance access to the growing worldwide population that is expected to require audiologist services. Our results suggest that deep learning may be a transformative technology that enables automatic and accurate audiogram interpretation.

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.

Sound comparison of seven TMS coils at matched stimulation strength.

BACKGROUND: Accurate data on the sound emitted by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coils is lacking. METHODS: We recorded the sound waveforms of seven coils with high bandwidth. We estimated the neural stimulation strength by measuring the induced electric field and applying a strength-duration model to account for different waveforms. RESULTS: Across coils, at maximum stimulator output and 25 cm distance, the sound pressure level (SPL) was 98-125 dB(Z) per pulse and 76-98 dB(A) for a 20 Hz pulse train. At 5 cm distance, these values were estimated to increase to 112-139 dB(Z) and 90-112 dB(A), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The coils' airborne sound can exceed some exposure limits for TMS subjects and, in some cases, for operators. These findings are consistent with the current TMS safety guidelines that recommend the use of hearing protection.