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

Towards an adult hearing screening procedure

OBJECTIVE

The first aim was to develop a simple, yet effective adult hearing screening protocol, based on the existing World Health Organization recommendations. Secondary aim was to gain insight in the possibilities and potential obstacles for implementation of national adult hearing screening programs across the globe.

METHODS

An expert working group was formed with 14 experts from six countries. Based on their recommendations a HEARRING screening protocol was devised and shared with all HEARRING group members. A survey was sent out to 62 clinicians from 22 countries to hear their considerations and the potential challenges they expect for the introduction of national adult hearing screening programs.

RESULTS

The proposed adult hearing screening protocol is made as simple and least time consuming as possible. The tablet-based screening tool consists of two red flag questions, followed by the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire and the Digits-in-Noise test, and is developed to be implemented in the primary care setting. The results of our survey indicate that most participants deem a national adult hearing screening to be cost-effective, but the major concerns regarding costs and funding, and infrastructure have to be discussed.

CONCLUSION

The HEARRING screening protocol is developed to assist clinicians and policy makers in their efforts to initiate effective local and national adult hearing screening programs.

Can hearing screening criteria at general health checkups be an indirect indicator of frailty and cognitive deficit in the older population? - with prevalence estimates based on updated World Health Organization hearing loss classification

AIM

This study aimed to reestimate the prevalence of hearing loss based on the updated World Health Organization hearing loss classification and investigate whether existing hearing screening criteria could efficiently screen for frailty or cognitive deficit.

METHODS

Data collected from community dwellers aged 40-91 years included 2325 samples. Health checkup hearing screening used were as follows: (A) 30 dB both at 1 and 4 kHz and (B) 30 dB at 1 kHz and 40 dB at 4 kHz were used. For participants aged ≥60 years, frailty according to the modified Cardiovascular Health Study criteria and cognitive deficit defined by a Mini-Mental State Examination score <28 were assessed. Logistic regression was performed to obtain odds ratios for frailty and cognitive deficit.

RESULTS

The rates of hearing loss using the updated World Health Organization classification in men were 8.6, 24.1, 54.2, 79.0 and 96.0% in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and 3.7, 12.7, 36.4, 72.1 and 90.4% in women, respectively. Failing hearing screening using criterion A was associated with an increased risk of frailty, a sex-adjusted odds ratio of 4.136 (95% confidence interval, 2.182-7.838) and an increased risk of cognitive deficit: 1.753 (95% confidence interval, 1.346-2.283). After adjusting for age and sex, the effects on frailty and cognitive deficit were no longer significant. The results were similar when criterion B was used.

CONCLUSION

Because of the high prevalence of hearing loss and the ability to utilize existing devices and methodologies, hearing screening for the elderly should be reviewed. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; 25: 504-510.

Audiological profile of first-time hearing aid users - implications for the development of a fast-track fitting protocol

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of implementing a fast-track process (single-session assess-and-fit appointment with no ENT specialist's examination) in hearing rehabilitation by investigating the accuracy of the protocol assignment applying various cut-off criteria and describing the audiometric profile of patients being evaluated for their first hearing aids.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Patients from a single institution (n = 1807, median age 75 years, IQR 67-82 years) undergoing the evaluation for their first hearing aid fitting.

RESULTS

There were no audiometric signs warranting further diagnostic evaluation in 1259 subjects (69.7%). These subjects could be identified using a single criterion: the average threshold difference between the ears in the frequencies from 0.5 to 4 kHz less than 10 dB. Age was found to be a good predictor for the success of a single-session evaluation and fitting, with a cut-off value of 75 years. Altogether, 593 persons (32.8%) were candidates for a fast-track process. The time-saving from a single-session process was estimated to be 1.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to have a fast-track hearing aid fitting protocol. Patients can be preselected with excellent accuracy using a single audiometric criterion and an age limit of 75. Time savings for a single-session process are insignificant.

An electrophysiological early marker of age-related hearing loss in the Wistar rat model

The goal of the present study was to determine, through a detailed study of the auditory brainstem response (ABR) waves, the possible existence of an early functional marker for the onset of presbycusis in an animal model. Toward this goal, Wistar rats were divided into four age groups: 3-month-old (3M, n = 6, control), 9-month-old (9M, n = 6), 14-month-old (14M, n = 6), and 20-month-old (20M, n = 6). ABR recordings were performed at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 kHz. The novel result reported here is that wave amplitudes, particularly wave II, were significantly diminished in the 9M group, even though there was no evidence of significant age-related threshold shift at that age. A significant increase in auditory thresholds with age was first detected at 14M, which further progressed at 20M, confirming our previous findings. These findings suggest that measurable alterations in ABR waves may precede age-related threshold shift and could serve as early markers to detect the onset of age-related hearing loss. Upon translation to humans, they could be used to implement early objective diagnosis, crucial to prevent or mitigate the negative consequences of presbycusis, a common, progressive, and irreversible neurodegenerative age-related disorder. This may allow, for instance, a better preservation of residual hearing, thus delaying the progression of the disease and minimizing the impact of hearing loss, ultimately improving the quality of life for those who suffer from this neurodegenerative condition.

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.

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

Importance

Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are now available in the US; however, their clinical and economic outcomes are unknown.

Objective

To project the clinical and economic outcomes of traditional hearing aid provision compared with OTC hearing aid provision.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cost-effectiveness analysis used a previously validated decision model of hearing loss (HL) to simulate US adults aged 40 years and older across their lifetime in US primary care offices who experienced yearly probabilities of acquiring HL (0.1%-10.4%), worsening of their HL, and traditional hearing aid uptake (0.5%-8.1%/y at a fixed uptake cost of $3690) and utility benefits (0.11 additional utils/y). For OTC hearing aid provision, persons with perceived mild to moderate HL experienced increased OTC hearing aid uptake (1%-16%/y) based on estimates of time to first HL diagnosis. In the base case, OTC hearing aid utility benefits ranged from 0.05 to 0.11 additional utils/y (45%-100% of traditional hearing aids), and costs were $200 to $1400 (5%-38% of traditional hearing aids). Distributions were assigned to parameters to conduct probabilistic uncertainty analysis.

Intervention

Provision of OTC hearing aids, at increased uptake rates, across a range of effectiveness and costs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/y) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results

Traditional hearing aid provision resulted in 18.162 QALYs, compared with 18.162 to 18.186 for OTC hearing aids varying with OTC hearing aid utility benefit (45%-100% that of traditional hearing aids). Provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater lifetime discounted costs by $70 to $200 along with OTC device cost ($200-$1000/pair; 5%-38% traditional hearing aid cost) due to increased hearing aid uptake. Provision of OTC hearing aids was considered cost-effective (ICER<$100 000/QALY) if the OTC utility benefit was 0.06 or greater (55% of the traditional hearing aid effectiveness). In probabilistic uncertainty analysis, OTC hearing aid provision was cost-effective in 53% of simulations.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater uptake of hearing intervention and was cost-effective over a range of prices so long as OTC hearing aids were greater than 55% as beneficial to patient quality of life as traditional hearing aids.

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

Importance

Adult hearing screening is not routinely performed, and most individuals with hearing loss (HL) have never had their hearing tested as adults.

Objective

To project the monetary value of future research clarifying uncertainties around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a validated decision model of HL (DeciBHAL-US: Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan) was used to simulate current detection and treatment of HL vs hearing screening schedules. Key model inputs included HL incidence (0.06%-10.42%/y), hearing aid uptake (0.54%-8.14%/y), screening effectiveness (1.62 × hearing aid uptake), utility benefits of hearing aids (+0.11), and hearing aid device costs ($3690). Distributions to model parameters for probabilistic uncertainty analysis were assigned. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) using a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated. The EVPI and EVPPI estimate the upper bound of the dollar value of future research. This study was based on 40-year-old persons over their remaining lifetimes in a US primary care setting.

Exposures

Screening schedules beginning at ages 45, 55, 65, and 75 years, and frequencies of every 1 or 5 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were QALYs and costs (2020 US dollars) from a health system perspective.

Results

The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for yearly screening beginning at ages 55 to 75 years ranged from $39 200 to $80 200/QALY. Yearly screening beginning at age 55 years was the optimal screening schedule in 38% of probabilistic uncertainty analysis simulations. The population EVPI, or value of reducing all uncertainty, was $8.2 to $12.6 billion varying with willingness to pay and the EVPPI, or value of reducing all screening effectiveness uncertainty, was $2.4 billion.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of US adult hearing screening, large uncertainty around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule was identified. Future research on hearing screening has a high potential value so is likely justified.