Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Design and Methods of the Early Age-Related Hearing Loss Investigation Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Hearing loss has been identified as a major modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline. The Early Age-Related Hearing Loss Investigation (EARHLI) study will assess the mechanisms linking early age-related hearing loss (ARHL) and cognitive impairment.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, single-site, early phase II, superiority trial.

SETTING

Tertiary academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred fifty participants aged 55 to 75 years with early ARHL (severity defined as borderline to moderate) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment will be included.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants will be randomized 1:1 to a best practice hearing intervention or a health education control.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary study outcome is cognition measured by the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite. Secondary outcomes include additional measures of cognition, social engagement, and brain organization/connectivity.

RESULTS

Trial enrollment will begin in early 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

After its completion in 2028, the EARHLI trial should offer evidence on the effect of hearing treatment versus a health education control on cognitive performance, social engagement, and brain organization/connectivity in 55- to 75-year-old community-dwelling adults with early ARHL and amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

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.

Hearing healthcare utilisation among older adults with self-reported hearing loss during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the prevalence, causes, and risk factors of hearing healthcare delays in older people with self-reported hearing loss in the United States.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used data from the National Health and Ageing Trends Study (NHATS), a nationally representative survey of Medicare beneficiaries. A supplemental COVID-19 survey was mailed to the participants from June to October 2020.

STUDY SAMPLE

By January 2021, 3257 participants had returned completed COVID-19 questionnaires, with the majority having been self-administered between July and August 2020.

RESULTS

The participants in the study represented 32.7 million older adults in the US, with 29.1% reporting hearing loss. Among over 12.4 million older adults who put off needed or planned medical care, 19.6% of those with self-reported hearing loss and 24.5% of hearing aid or device users stated they delayed hearing appointments. Approximately 629,911 older adults with hearing devices were impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak for audiological services. The top three reasons were deciding to wait, service cancellation, and fear of going. Education and race/ethnicity were associated with delaying hearing healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted hearing healthcare utilisation among older adults with self-reported hearing loss in 2020, with both patient- and provider- initiated delays.

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.

Hearing Loss: Self-Reported Onset and Etiology Among Older Adults in the United States

This study investigated self-reported age of onset and etiology of hearing loss among older adults in the United States. Study cohort included older adult (≥70 years) survey respondents from the 2017 to 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 797). Overall, 51.1% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 46.1-56.1] of older adults self-reported hearing loss. Among older adults who reported hearing loss, the most reported age of onset was age 70 or older (41.7% [95% CI: 38.1%-45.3%]), followed by sequentially younger age brackets including ages 60 to 69 years (27.3% [95% CI: 23.6%-31.3%]) and ages 40 to 59 years (15.7% [95% CI: 12.9%-19.0%]). The most common etiology of hearing loss was aging (66.3% [95% CI: 60.8%-71.4%]) followed by loud long-term noise (30.3% [95% CI: 26.2%-34.9%]) and loud brief noise (13.8% [95% CI: 10.3%-18.4%]). Our study describes the most common age of onset and etiologies of hearing loss among a representative sample of United States older adults.

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.

The Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and Pure-Tone Average Predict Hearing Aid Use Equally Well

PURPOSE

This study aimed to (a) compare the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) and pure-tone average (PTA) in their abilities to predict hearing aid use and (b) report the optimal cut-point values on the RHHI and PTA that predict hearing aid use.

METHOD

Participants were from a community-based cohort study. We evaluated the ability of the RHHI and PTA as (a) continuous variables and (b) binary variables characterized by the optimal cut point determined by the Youden Index to predict hearing aid use. RHHI scores range from 0 to 72, and PTA was defined as averaged thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz in the worse ear. We used logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves with corresponding concordance statistics (c-statistics) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the predictive ability of models and chi-square tests to determine whether c-statistics were significantly different.

RESULTS

This study included 581 participants (Mage = 72.9 [SD = 9.9] years; 59.9% female; 14.3% Minority race). The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.79, 95% CI [0.75, 0.83]) and PTA (0.81, 95% CI [0.78, 0.85]), as continuous variables, were not significantly different (p = .25). The optimal cut points for the RHHI and PTA to predict hearing aid use were 6 points and 32.5 dB HL, respectively. The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.72, 95% CI [0.68, 0.76]) and PTA (0.75, 95% CI [0.71, 0.79]), as binary variables, were not significantly different (p = .27).

CONCLUSION

The RHHI and PTA are similar in their ability to predict hearing aid use.

The association of hearing loss with frailty among community-dwelling older adults: findings from the National Health and Aging Trends Study

BACKGROUND

The identification of modifiable risk factors is crucial for the prevention and/or reversal of frailty, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Hearing loss affects two-thirds of older adults in the United States (U.S.) and is associated with physical and cognitive decline which may increase frailty risk. We investigated the association of hearing loss and hearing aid use with frailty and pre-frailty in a nationally representative sample of older adults in the U.S.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2021 round). The better-hearing ear pure-tone average (BPTA) at speech-frequencies (0.5-4 kHz) was modeled continuously (per 10 dB) and categorically (no ≤ 25 dB, mild 26-40 dB, moderate or greater > 40 dB hearing loss). Hearing aid use was self-reported. The physical frailty phenotype (frail, pre-frail, robust) was determined based on Fried criteria: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, weakness, slow walking speed. We used multinomial multivariable regression adjusted for sociodemographic and health characteristics (odds ratios [95% Confidence Intervals]).

RESULTS

Among 2,361 participants (mean age = 81 years, 56% female, 19% Black), 860 (36%) had mild and 864 (37%) had moderate or greater hearing loss. Worse hearing was associated with greater odds of being frail versus robust (OR = 1.20 [1.05-1.38] per 10 dB difference). Categorically, moderate or greater hearing loss was associated with greater odds of being frail (OR = 1.84 [1.01-3.08]) and pre-frail (OR = 1.46 [1.01-2.10]) versus robust. Among 1,724 participants with hearing loss, compared to hearing aid users (N = 522), nonusers had greater odds of being frail (OR = 2.54 [1.54-4.18]) and pre-frail (OR = 1.51 [1.05-2.17]) versus robust, and frail versus pre-frail (OR = 1.68 [1.04-2.72]).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationally representative sample of older adults in the U.S., using gold-standard hearing measures and a validated frailty phenotype, hearing loss and lack of hearing aid use was cross-sectionally associated with frailty and pre-frailty. Future longitudinal studies are needed to establish if hearing loss is a risk factor for frailty, which may have significant clinical importance.

Association of hearing impairment with social participation restriction and depression: comparison between midlife and older adults

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the association between hearing impairment and depression, focusing on the role of restricted social engagement as a mediator and whether the mediating relationship differed between midlife individuals (45-64) and older adults (65+).

METHODS

Individuals aged 45 and older from the cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2018 were analyzed (N = 3,020). A multiple-group path analysis was conducted to compare midlife individuals (n = 1,774) and older adults (n = 1,246).

RESULTS

The results indicated that among U.S. adults aged 45 or older, 12.3% reported having serious difficulty hearing (21.2% among older adults vs. 7.4% among midlife adults). In both age groups, significant direct relationship between hearing impairment and depression, as well as indirect relationship via social participation restriction, were found. However, a significant difference was found in the relationship between restricted social participation and depression by age group (i.e. moderated mediation): The coefficient was greater among midlife adults than among older adults (Δbmidlife-older=1.109-0.383 = 0.726, p<.001).

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight that adverse psychosocial effects of hearing impairment are also an important concern for midlife adults. As the importance of social engagement was greater among midlife adults with hearing impairment, age-specific interventions should be adopted to reduce depression associated with hearing impairment.

Machine Learning Prediction of Objective Hearing Loss With Demographics, Clinical Factors, and Subjective Hearing Status

OBJECTIVE

Hearing loss (HL) is highly prevalent, yet underrecognized and underdiagnosed. Lack of standardized screening, awareness, cost, and access to hearing testing present barriers to HL identification. To facilitate prescreening and selection of patients who warrant audiometric evaluation, we developed a machine learning (ML) model to predict speech-frequency pure-tone average (PTA).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

METHODS

The cohort included 8918 adults (≥20 years) who completed audiometric testing with NHANES (2012-2018). The primary outcome measure was the prediction of better hearing ear speech-frequency PTA. Relevant predictors included demographics, medical conditions, and subjective assessment of hearing. Supervised ML with a tree-based architecture was used. Regression performance was determined by the mean absolute error (MAE) with binary classification assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Using the full set of predictors, the test set MAE between the ML-predicted and actual PTA was 5.29 dB HL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.97-5.61). The 5 most influential predictors of higher PTA were increased age, worse subjective hearing, male gender, increased body mass index, and history of smoking. The 5-factor abbreviated model performed comparably to the extended feature set with MAE 5.36 (95% CI: 5.03-5.69) and AUC for PTA > 25 dB HL of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94).

CONCLUSION

The ML model was able to predict PTA with patient demographics, clinical factors, and subjective hearing status. ML-based prediction may be used to identify individuals who could benefit most from audiometric evaluation.

Cancer survivors and neurotoxic chemotherapy: hearing loss and tinnitus

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about hearing loss and tinnitus associated with neurotoxic chemotherapy. Study evaluated for differences in occurrence rates and effects of hearing loss and tinnitus in survivors who received a platinum alone, a taxane alone or a platinum and taxane containing regimen.

METHODS

Total of 273 survivors with breast, gastrointestinal, gynaecological or lung cancer completed self-report measures of hearing loss and tinnitus and had an audiometric assessment that obtained pure tone air conduction thresholds bilaterally at frequencies of between 0.25 kHz to 16.0 kHz. To adjust for age-related and gender-related changes in hearing, each survivor's audiogram was evaluated using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey-modified Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Survivor was classified as having hearing loss if at any frequency they scored poorer than the 50th percentile for their age and gender. Survivors were categorised as having tinnitus if they reported that for >10% of their time awake, they were consciously aware of their tinnitus. Differences among the chemotherapy groups were evaluated using parametric and non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

For most of the demographic and clinical characteristics, no differences were found among the three chemotherapy groups. Occurrence rates for audiogram-confirmed hearing loss ranged from 52.3% to 71.4%. Occurrence rates for tinnitus ranged from 37.1% to 40.0%. No differences were found among the three chemotherapy groups in the occurrence rates or effects of hearing loss and tinnitus.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that regardless of the chemotherapy regimen common mechanistic pathway(s) may underlie these two neurotoxicities.

Construction and Effect of the Three-Level and Two-Stage Screening Mode for Age-Related Hearing Loss: A Study Based on the Community in Shanghai, China

Background

There is a high incidence rate of age-related hearing loss. Severe hearing loss may increase the prevalence of mental illness, cognitive impairment, and even the risk of all-cause death.

Purpose

Construction of the three-level and two-stage screening mode for age-related hearing loss of the community and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Materials and Methods

A total of 401 participants (aged 60 years or older) from five typical communities were enrolled in the study. The risk factors assessment of age-related hearing loss was completed by using a cross-sectional survey and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Multiple screening method was adopted and verified by serial and parallel tests, respectively. Based on research data, incorporate risk factors assessment, the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening Version (HHIE-s) and pure tone audiometry (PTA) were used to construct the screening mode.

Results

Multiple screening series testing and multiple screening parallel testing, including risk factors assessment, HHIE-s, and PTA, were used for verification: the sensitivity, specificity, and Kappa index were 70.5% and 9.2%, 95.0% and 71.6%, 0.26 and 0.63, respectively. Finally, the three-level and two-stage screening mode for age-related hearing loss was established. "Three-level" was defined as the risk factors assessment/HHIE-s (high-risk population), PTA (suspect population), and comprehensive hearing loss assessment (confirmed population). "Two-stage" was defined as the population screening by general practitioner in the community and target screening by otolaryngologist of the tertiary hospitals.

Conclusion

The three-level and two-stage screening mode for age-related hearing loss consists of the following framework: from population screening to target screening, from suspicious diagnosis to accurate diagnosis, from primary health care to tertiary hospitals. The study objective is to structure a new secondary prevention and treatment mode for age-related hearing loss with primary health care as the core, so as to help the front-end management of healthy aging.

Cognitive reserve disorder in age-related hearing loss: cognitive cortical compensatory to auditory perceptual processing

The aim of this study is to ascertain the mechanisms of cognitive reserve disorder in age-related hearing loss (ARHL), to study the correlation between ARHL and cognitive decline via EEG, and to reverse the adverse remodeling of auditory-cognitive connectivity with hearing aids (HAs). In this study, 32 participants were enrolled, including 12 with ARHLs, 9 with HAs, and 11 healthy controls (HCs), to undergo EEG, Pure Tone Average (PTA), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and other general cognitive tests. There were the lowest MoCA in the ARHL group (P = 0.001), especially in language and abstraction. In the ARHL group, power spectral density of the gamma in right middle temporal gyrus was significantly higher than HC and HA groups, while functional connectivity between superior frontal gyrus and cingulate gyrus was weaker than HC group (P = 0.036) and HA group (P = 0.021). In the HA group, superior temporal gyrus and cuneus had higher connectivity than in the HC group (P = 0.036). In the ARHL group, DeltaTM_DTA (P = 0.042) and CTB (P = 0.011) were more frequent than in the HC group, while there was less DeltaTM_CTA (P = 0.029). PTA was found to be associated with MoCA (r = -0.580) and language (r = -0.572), DeltaTM_CTB had a likewise correlation with MoCA (r = 0.483) and language (r = 0.493), while DeltaTM_DTA was related to abstraction (r = -0.458). Cognitive cortexes compensate for worse auditory perceptual processing in ARHL, which relates to cognitive decline. The impaired functional connectivity between auditory and cognitive cortexes can be remodeled by HAs. DeltaTM may serve as a biomarker for early cognitive decline and decreased auditory speech perception in ARHL.

Machine Learning Approach for Screening Cochlear Implant Candidates: Comparing With the 60/60 Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To develop a machine learning-based referral guideline for patients undergoing cochlear implant candidacy evaluation (CICE) and to compare with the widely used 60/60 guideline.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

772 adults undergoing CICE from 2015 to 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Variables included demographics, unaided thresholds, and word recognition score. A random forest classification model was trained on patients undergoing CICE, and bootstrap cross-validation was used to assess the modeling approach's performance.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The machine learning-based referral tool was evaluated against the 60/60 guideline based on ability to identify CI candidates under traditional and expanded criteria.

RESULTS

Of 587 patients with complete data, 563 (96%) met candidacy at our center, and the 60/60 guideline identified 512 (87%) patients. In the random forest model, word recognition score; thresholds at 3000, 2000, and 125; and age at CICE had the largest impact on candidacy (mean decrease in Gini coefficient, 2.83, 1.60, 1.20, 1.17, and 1.16, respectively). The 60/60 guideline had a sensitivity of 0.91, a specificity of 0.42, and an accuracy of 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.91). The random forest model obtained higher sensitivity (0.96), specificity (1.00), and accuracy (0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.98). Across 1,000 bootstrapped iterations, the model yielded a median sensitivity of 0.92 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.85-0.98), specificity of 1.00 (IQR, 0.88-1.00), accuracy of 0.93 (IQR, 0.85-0.97), and area under the curve of 0.96 (IQR, 0.93-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel machine learning-based screening model is highly sensitive, specific, and accurate in predicting CI candidacy. Bootstrapping confirmed that this approach is potentially generalizable with consistent results.

Italian validation of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly - Screening version (HHIE-S-It)

Objective

Validate the Italian version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly - Screening version (HHIE-S-It).

Methods

After translation, psychometric properties and attributes were analysed by administering the HHIE-S-It to 167 elderly outpatients together with the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI).

Results

The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.908 for the total score, and 0.832 and 0.816 for its two subscales. Significant test-retest reliability was observed (p < 0.001). Moderate to high correlations were found between HHIE-S-It and pure tone average in the better ear (p < 0.001). The ANOVA test confirmed the significant difference in HHIE-S-It scores across groups according to the degree of hearing loss (p < 0.001). Only very low and low significant correlations were observed between HHIE-S-It and PGWBI. The criterion HHIE-S-It > 11 was observed as the best cut-off with highest sensitivity (86.4%), specificity (72.4%), positive predictive value (52.8%), negative predictive value (93.7%) and likelihood ratios (3.12 and 0.19).

Conclusions

Since the HHIE-S-It presented acceptable psychometric properties, its adoption is justified for both clinical and research purposes. Acceptable diagnostic attributes allow its use as a screening tool for age-related hearing loss.

Hearing Loss Diagnosis and Management in Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Hearing loss is a common concern in patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), and early detection and intervention are crucial to prevent negative impacts on communication, cognition, socialization, safety, and mental health. Despite a lack of the literature specifically focused on hearing loss in adults with IDD, there is a substantial body of research demonstrating the prevalence of hearing loss in this population. This literature review examines the diagnosis and management of hearing loss in adult patients with IDD, with a focus on primary care considerations. Primary care providers must be aware of the unique needs and presentations of patients with IDD to ensure appropriate screening and treatment. This review highlights the importance of early detection and intervention, as well as the need for further research to guide clinical practice in this patient population.

Combined hearing and vision screening programs: A scoping review

Background and aim

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 billion and 2.2 billion people have hearing and vision impairment, respectively. The burden of these non-communicable diseases is highest in low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of services and health professionals. The WHO has recommended universal health coverage and integrated service delivery to improve ear and eye care services. This scoping review describes the evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs.

Method

A keyword search of three electronic databases, namely Scopus, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Web of Science, was conducted, resulting in 219 results. After removing duplicates and screening based on eligibility criteria, data were extracted from 19 included studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews were followed. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results

Most studies (63.2%) were from high-income countries, with 31.6% from middle-income and 5.2% from low-income countries. The majority of studies (78.9%) involved children and the four studies reporting on adults all included adults above 50 years of age. Vision screening was most commonly performed with the "Tumbling E" and "Snellen Chart," while hearing was typically screened using pure tone audiometry. Studies reported referral rates as the most common outcome with sensitivity and specificity rates not reported in any included articles. Reported benefits of combined vision and hearing screenings included earlier detection of vision and hearing difficulties to support functioning and quality of life as well as resource sharing for reduced costs. Challenges to combined screening included ineffective follow-up systems, management of test equipment, and monitoring of screening personnel.

Conclusions

There is limited research evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs. Although potential benefits are demonstrated, especially for mHealth-supported programs in communities, more feasibility and implementation research are required, particularly in low- and middle-income countries and across all age groups. Developing universal, standardized reporting guidelines for combined sensory screening programs is recommended to enhance the standardization and effectiveness of combined sensory screening programs.

Intrinsic Capacities, Functional Ability, Physiological Systems, and Caregiver Support: A Targeted Synthesis of Effective Interventions and International Recommendations for Older Adults

The ageing population calls for interventions that can assist older people to age healthily. This study aimed to provide a targeted synthesis of high-level research and current evidence-based recommendations on effective interventions for maintaining or preventing the decline in intrinsic capacity, functional ability, and physiological systems, or for caregiver support. Nestled within the healthy ageing framework by the World Health Organization, available evidence was selected in a targeted manner, with the purpose of providing a synthesis that would allow the application of this knowledge in real life. As such, the outcome variables were examined through an Evidence and Gap Map of interventions for functional ability and through guidelines from leading institutions. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines on community-dwelling older adults with or without minor health limitations were considered. Thirty-eight documents were included and over fifty interventions identified. Physical activity interventions were consistently effective across several domains. Recommendations point to screening, whilst highlighting the importance of behavioural factors in the endeavour to age healthily. There is a wide range of activities which are likely to foster healthy ageing. To encourage their uptake, it is important for communities to offer suitable promotion and support, and to make these accessible to the public.

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.

Usability, acceptability and clinical utility of a mobile app to screen for hearing loss in older adults in a geriatric rehabilitation hospital

RATIONALE

Hearing loss is a common problem for older adults entering rehabilitation hospitals.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To pilot a hearing loss screening device to determine feasibility, usability, and impact on patient outcomes.

METHODS

We screened all patients newly admitted to a geriatric day hospital for hearing loss using the SHOEBOX® QuickTest (SHOEBOX Ltd.) app as part of a quality improvement programme. We measured the time it took for each patient to complete screening and recorded any issues they had using the app. We recorded the number of patients who screened positive who did not have a previous diagnosis and changes in physician behaviours after they received their patients' results.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients with a mean age of 83.4 years used the hearing screener. All patients were able to complete the screening with a mean time to completion of 10 min and 48 s. Ninety-nine percent of patients screened positive for hearing loss. Of these positives 56% were in participants not already known to have hearing loss. Physicians often changed their behaviour after receiving results by using assistive devices during visits and referring to audiology for formal testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for hearing loss is feasible in a geriatric day hospital. The SHOEBOX QuickTest app is acceptable, usable, resulting in the identification of undiagnosed hearing loss and in changes to physician behaviour.

Adenovirus-mediated SIRT1 protects cochlear strial marginal cells in a D-gal-induced senescent model in vitro

BACKGROUND

A primary obstacle in age-related hearing loss (ARHL) study is the lack of accelerated senescent models in vitro that explore the precise underlying mechanism in different types of ARHL. The damage to strial marginal cells (SMCs) is a subset of strial presbycusis-associated pathological changes. We aimed to establish a D-galactose (D-gal)-induced SMCs senescent model and study the effect of deacetylase sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) on presbycusis in vitro.

METHODS

SMCs from C57BL/6J neonatal mice were cultured and treated with D-gal to establish accelerated senescent models. And then D-gal-induced SMCs were transfected with adenovirus (Ad)-SIRT1-GFP or Ad-GFP. Oxidative stress and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) damage were determined by histological analysis or RT-PCR. Western blotting (WB) and RT-PCR were used to evaluate protein and mRNA levels of superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2) and SIRT1, respectively. Additionally, apoptosis was investigated by WB and TUNEL staining.

RESULTS

D-gal-induced SMCs exhibited several characteristics of senescence, including increased the level of 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine, which is a marker of DNA oxidative damage, and elevated the amount of mtDNA 3860-bp deletion, which is a common type of mtDNA damage in the auditory system of mice. SIRT1 overexpression effectively inhibited these changes by upregulating the level of SOD2, thereby inhibiting cytochrome c translocation from mitochondria to cytoplasm, inhibiting cell apoptosis, and ultimately delaying aging in the D-gal-induced senescent SMCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, the evidence suggests that the D-gal-induced SMCs accelerated aging model is successfully established, and SIRT1 overexpression protects SMCs against oxidative stress by enhancing SOD2 expression in ARHL.

Impact of Low Skeletal Muscle Mass and Obesity on Hearing Loss in Asymptomatic Individuals: A Population-Based Study

The relationship between low muscle mass (LMM) with obesity and hearing loss has been poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association of LMM and obesity on hearing loss in the general population. A total of 265,792 adults who underwent a hearing test and body composition analyses were included. Pre-sarcopenia was defined as having an appendicular muscle mass index <5.7 kg/m2 for women and <7.0 kg/m2 for men, and obesity as a body mass index ≥25 kg/m2, while pre-sarcopenic obesity was defined as the co-presence of LMM and obesity. Participants were divided into four groups according to the presence of pre-sarcopenia and/or obesity. The prevalence of hearing loss was 1.8% in the control, 2.5% in the pre-sarcopenia alone, 3.0% in the obesity alone, and 6.2% in the pre-sarcopenic obesity group (p < 0.001). Hearing Thresholds were the highest in the pre-sarcopenic obesity group compared with the other three groups. In multivariable-adjusted models, the risk of hearing loss was the highest in the pre-sarcopenic obesity group (odds ratio: 1.30 [95% confidence interval: 1.10−1.56]), followed by the obesity alone (1.20 [1.12−1.28]) and pre-sarcopenia alone (1.19 [1.06−1.34]) group compared with the control group (p < 0.001). Pre-sarcopenic obesity was independently associated with a higher prevalence of hearing loss, supporting pre-sarcopenic obesity itself as a risk for the decline in hearing function.

A Five-Year Update on the Profile of Adults Undergoing Cochlear Implant Evaluation and Surgery-Are We Doing Better?

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the influence of expanding indications on the profile of adults undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) at a high-volume CI center.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

774 adults undergoing CI evaluation from August 2015 to August 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics; audiometry; speech recognition; speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ-12).

RESULTS

Of 745 (96.3%) patients qualifying for implantation, 642 (86.6%) pursued surgery. Median age at evaluation was 69 years; 56.3% were men; 88.2% were Caucasian. Median distance to our center was 95 miles. The majority (51.8%) had public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid), followed by private (47.8%) and military (0.4%). Mean PTA, CNC, and AzBio in quiet and noise for the ear to be implanted were 85.2 dB HL, 15.0%, and 19.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Hybrid/EAS criteria were met by 138 (18.5%) CI candidates, and 436 (77.0%) unilateral CI recipients had aidable contralateral hearing for bimodal hearing configurations. Younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.99) and non-Caucasian race (OR, 6.95; 95% confidence interval, 3.22-14.98) predicted candidacy. Likelihood of surgery increased for Caucasian (OR, 8.08; 95% confidence interval, 4.85-13.47) and married (OR, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-3.47) patients and decreased for those with public insurance (OR, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.69). A lower SSQ-12 score predicted both candidacy and surgery.

CONCLUSION

Despite expansions in criteria, speech understanding remained extremely low at CI evaluation. Younger age and non-Caucasian race predicted candidacy, and Caucasian, married patients with private insurance and lower SSQ scores were more likely to pursue surgery.

Hearing Aid Usage and Reported Hearing Difficulty in Americans With Subclinical Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

Subclinical hearing loss (SCHL) (previously defined by our group as a four-frequency pure tone average [PTA4] >0 to ≤25 dB) has recently been associated with depressive symptoms and cognitive decline. This suggests that the common 25 dB adult cutpoint in the United States for normal hearing may not be sensitive enough. We aim to characterize real-world hearing difficulties, as measured by hearing aid use and self-reported hearing difficulty, among individuals with SCHL.

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of biennial cross-sectional epidemiologic survey (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2012, 2015-2016).

SETTING

Community, multicentered, national.

SUBJECTS

Noninstitutionalized US citizens ≥12 years old, n = 19,246.

MEASURES

PTA4 (500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 Hz), high-frequency pure tone average (PTAhf) (6,000, 8,000 Hz), reported hearing aid use, subjective difficulty hearing.

RESULTS

There were 806,705 Americans with SCHL who wore hearing aids (or 0.35% of the 227,324,096 Americans with SCHL; 95% confidence interval = 0.23%-0.54%). Among those with SCHL, 14.6% (33.1 million Americans) perceived a little trouble hearing and 2.29% (5.21 million Americans) perceived moderate/a lot of trouble hearing. When restricted to the borderline subcategory (>20 to ≤25 dB), 42.43% (6.64 million Americans) had at least a little trouble hearing. Among those with SCHL who wore hearing aids, 81% had a PTAhf >25 dB.

CONCLUSION

Despite hearing loss traditionally being defined by PTA4 ≤ 25 dB in the United States, nearly 1 million adults and adolescents with SCHL wore hearing aids, and nearly half with borderline HL had subjective difficulty hearing. To better reflect real-world difficulties, stricter definitions of hearing loss should be explored, including a lower cutpoint for the PTA4 or by using the more sensitive PTAhf.

Abnormal cerebellar network and effective connectivity in sudden and long-term sensorineural hearing loss

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is a common otology emergency and some SSNHL will develop into a long-term hearing loss (LSNHL). However, whether SSNHL and LSNHL have similar psychiatric patterns remains unknown, as well as the neural substrates. Increasing evidence has proved that the cerebellar network plays a vital role in hearing, cognition processing, and emotion control. Thus, we recruited 20 right SSNHL (RSSNHL), 20 right LSNHL (RLSNHL), and 24 well-matched healthy controls to explore the cerebellar patterns among the three groups. Every participant underwent pure tone audiometry tests, neuropsychological evaluations, and MRI scanning. Independent component analysis (ICA) was carried out on the MRI data and the cerebellar network was extracted. Granger causality analysis (GCA) was conducted using the significant cerebellar region as a seed. Pearson’s correlation analysis was computed between imaging characteristics and clinical features. ICA found the effect of group on right cerebellum lobule V for the cerebellar network. Then, we found decreased outflow from right cerebellum lobule V to right middle orbitofrontal cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex, superior temporal gyrus, and dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex in RSSNHL group in GCA analysis. No significance was found in RLSNHL subjects. Additionally, the RSSNHL group showed increased effective connectivity from the right middle frontal gyrus (MFG) and the RLSNHL group showed increased effective connectivity from the right insula and temporal pole to the right cerebellum lobule V. Moreover, connections between right cerebellum lobule V and mean time series of the cerebellar network was negatively correlated with anxiety score in RSSNHL and negatively correlated with depression scores in RLSNHL. Effective connectivity from right MFG to right cerebellum lobule V could predict anxiety status in RSSNHL subjects. Our results may prove potential imaging biomarkers and treatment targets for hearing loss in future work.

Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms and Explainability Techniques to Detect Hearing Loss From a Speech-in-Noise Screening Test

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze the performance of multivariate machine learning (ML) models applied to a speech-in-noise hearing screening test and investigate the contribution of the measured features toward hearing loss detection using explainability techniques.

METHOD

Seven different ML techniques, including transparent (i.e., decision tree and logistic regression) and opaque (e.g., random forest) models, were trained and evaluated on a data set including 215 tested ears (99 with hearing loss of mild degree or higher and 116 with no hearing loss). Post hoc explainability techniques were applied to highlight the role of each feature in predicting hearing loss.

RESULTS

Random forest (accuracy = .85, sensitivity = .86, specificity = .85, precision = .84) performed, on average, better than decision tree (accuracy = .82, sensitivity = .84, specificity = .80, precision = .79). Support vector machine, logistic regression, and gradient boosting had similar performance as random forest. According to post hoc explainability analysis on models generated using random forest, the features with the highest relevance in predicting hearing loss were age, number and percentage of correct responses, and average reaction time, whereas the total test time had the lowest relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a multivariate approach can help detect hearing loss with satisfactory performance. Further research on a bigger sample and using more complex ML algorithms and explainability techniques is needed to fully investigate the role of input features (including additional features such as risk factors and individual responses to low-/high-frequency stimuli) in predicting hearing loss.

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).

Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Use Among Adults in France in the CONSTANCES Study

IMPORTANCE

Although hearing loss is common in the population worldwide, the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use in the adult French population.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used data from the CONSTANCES cohort, a representative sample of the French population. Volunteers aged 18 to 75 years were recruited at 21 preventive health centers between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. The present study included participants with audiometric data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were prevalence of hearing loss and disabling hearing loss overall and by sex and age group and prevalence of self-reported hearing aid use among those with disabling hearing loss. Hearing loss was defined as a pure-tone average (PTA) in the better ear of 20 dB or higher, and disabling hearing loss was defined as a PTA in the better ear of 35 dB or higher.

RESULTS

Of 200 870 participants in the CONSTANCES study, 186 460 had full audiometric data and were included in this study (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [13.5] years); 100 330 (53.8%) were female, and 86 130 (46.2%) were male. Of these participants, 24.8% (95% CI, 24.6%-25.0%) had hearing loss and 4.3% (95% CI, 4.2%-4.4%) had disabling hearing loss. The prevalence rates of hearing loss increased from 3.4% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.9%) at age 18 to 25 years to 73.3% (95% CI, 69.5%-77.2%) at age 71 to 75 years among men and from 4.4% (95% CI, 3.9%-5.0%) at age 18 to 25 years to 64.1% (95% CI, 59.7%-68.4%) at age 71 to 75 years among women. The prevalence of disabling hearing loss increased from 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.4%) among participants aged 18 to 25 years to 23.3% (95% CI, 20.7%-26.0%) among participants aged 71 to 75 years. Among the 8050 participants with disabling hearing loss, 36.8% (95% CI, 35.8%-37.9%) reported using hearing aids, including 56.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-74.4%) aged 18 to 25 years and 32.9% (95% CI, 26.8%-39.2%) aged 71 to 75 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, hearing loss was prevalent in France, and the prevalence of hearing loss increased with age among both men and women. Hearing aids were underused, particularly among older individuals. These findings suggest that hearing loss prevention and screening in the French population are needed.

A Broad Examination of Health Policy Barriers to Access and Affordability of Hearing Treatment for Medicare Beneficiaries

In 2016, the National Academies on Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released a report titled, "Hearing Health Care for Adults," which detailed the challenges and provided recommendations for improving the access to affordable hearing care for adults in the United States. Arguably the most significant outcome from this report was the subsequent passage of the Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act in 2017, which requires the Food and Drug Administration to develop regulations for a class of hearing aids that address mild to moderate hearing loss to be available for sale over the counter (OTC). While this presents an important step toward improving access and affordability of hearing treatment, it does not represent a complete solution. In fact, optimizing the new landscape of hearing care for individuals with hearing loss also may require new policy solutions. This article reflects on the progress achieved since the NASEM report and the policy issues that remain to improve accessibility and affordability of hearing care among older adults.

D-Galactose-Induced Accelerated Aging Model on Auditory Cortical Neurons by Regulating Oxidative Stress and Apoptosis in Vitro

OBJECTIVES

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is much more prevalent with age, affecting not only peripheral but central auditory system. We have previously established an aging model of peripheral auditory system in vitro using cultured cochlear basilar membrane. However, there is no ideal accelerated aging model on central auditory system in vitro. To establish the aging model, auditory cortical neurons (ACNs) were primary cultured and treated with either vehicle or different doses of D-galactose (D-gal). We studied the effect of D-gal on ACNs by evaluating the hallmarks of aging, including cell proliferation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial function, and neuronal apoptosis. Compared with the control group, cell viability was significantly inhibited in the D-gal-treated group in a dose-dependent manner. The production of reactive oxygen species was strongly increased in the D-gal-treated group. Meanwhile, the level of 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine, which is a biomarker of DNA oxidative damage, was even higher in the D-gal-treated group than that in the control group. Conversely, the levels of ATP and mitochondrial membrane potential were notably decreased in the D-gal-treated group contrast to that in the control group. Furthermore, the number of neuronal apoptosis in the D-gal-treated group, compared with that in the control group, was dramatically increased in a dose-dependent approach. Together, our results demonstrate that ACNs treated with D-gal in vitro display senescence characteristics by regulating oxidative stress and apoptosis, indicating accelerated aging model on ACNs are successfully established. And the model provides a promising approach for exploring underlying mechanisms of the ARHL.

Age-Related Disparities in the Treatment of Borderline/Mild Hearing Loss in the United States

To investigate disparities in hearing aid use across the life span for borderline/mild hearing loss, a cross-sectional epidemiologic study in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was conducted. Multivariable logistic regressions controlling for hearing level analyzed the association between hearing aid use and age in borderline/mild hearing loss. Age was grouped into quartiles. Of 2470 subjects, 2.0% (n = 50) were <25 years old; 12.0% (n = 297), 25 to 49 years; 65.5% (n = 1618), 50 to 74 years; and 20.5% (n = 505), ≥75 years. When compared with the youngest quartile and while controlling for hearing level, those in the second quartile were 4.6 times less likely to use hearing aids (P < .01); those in the third were 4.2 times less likely (P < .01); and those in the fourth were 4.7 times less likely (P < .001). The dramatically lower hearing aid usage of all older age groups as compared with children/younger adults represents a large unaddressed age-related disparity in the treatment of borderline/mild hearing loss.

The Impact of Cochlear Implantation: Cognitive Function, Quality of Life, and Frailty in Older Adults

This review examines the relationship between cochlear implantation and cognition and quality of life in older adults, as well as how frailty affects outcomes for older patients with cochlear implants. A growing body of evidence suggests that there is a strong association between hearing loss and cognitive impairment. Preliminary studies suggest that cochlear implantation in older adults may be protective against cognitive decline. While studies have observed a positive impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life, currently it is unclear what factors contribute the most to improved quality of life. Frailty, as a measurement of general health, likely plays a role in complication rates and quality-of-life outcomes after cochlear implantation, though larger prospective studies are required to further elucidate this relationship.

Global, regional, and national burden of age-related hearing loss from 1990 to 2019

The global distribution and temporal trend of age-related hearing loss (ARHL) are unknown, and we aimed to investigate magnitudes and temporal trends of ARHL burden and its influencing factors at the national, regional, and global levels. Based on the information of Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, we calculated the estimated annual percentage change to quantify the global, regional, and national temporal trends of age-standardized rates (ASRs) of ARHL by gender, age, and severity. The number of prevalent cases and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of ARHL increased from 751.50 million and 22.01 million in 1990 to 1456.66 million and 40.24 million in 2019, respectively. Except for a few countries such as Niger and Burkina Faso, the age-standardized prevalence rate and age-standardized DALYs rate showed a downward trend in most countries and regions. Mild ARHL accounted for the largest proportion in all ARHL, and only mild ARHL showed an upward trend in ASRs. In most regions, the proportion of ARHL disease burden attributable to occupational noise showed a downward trend in the past 30 years. In 2019, ARHL disease burden attributable to occupational noise declined with the increase of socio-demographic index in countries. Although the ASR of ARHL in most parts of the world is declining, the absolute disease burden of ARHL is still heavy. Understanding the real-time disease burden of ARHL and its temporal trend is of great significance for formulating more effective preventive measures and reducing the ARHL burden.

Barriers to Adult Cochlear Implant Care in the United States: An Analysis of Health Care Delivery

Persistent underutilization of cochlear implants (CIs) in the United States is in part a reflection of a lack of hearing health knowledge and the complexities of care delivery in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. An evaluation of the patient experience through the CI health care delivery process systematically exposes barriers that must be overcome to undergo treatment for moderate-to-severe hearing loss. This review analyzes patient-facing obstacles including diagnosis of hearing loss, CI candidate identification and referral to surgeon, CI evaluation and candidacy criteria interpretation, and lastly CI surgery and rehabilitation. Pervasive throughout the process are several themes which demand attention in addressing inequities in hearing health disparities in the United States.