Search

Background and Objectives: Hearing loss frequently goes undiagnosed and untreated, with serious sequelae. Hearing screening facilitates diagnosis and treatment but is not routinely conducted in primary care. This study addresses attitudes and insights of patients and primary care clinic personnel relative to routinization of hearing screening in primary care for older adults., Research Design and Methods: Data presented are from the qualitative portion of a larger study. The main study compared screening completion for three approaches to coordinating telephone-based hearing screening with primary care - one offering hearing screening within the primary care encounter and two providing information for at-home screening (one with and one without provider encouragement). Focus groups/interviews were conducted with personnel (n=38) at the six participating clinics, patients who completed screening and were referred for diagnosis (n=14) and patients who did not complete screening (n=10). Analysis used the general inductive approach., Results: Most patients had unaddressed hearing concerns prior to the study. Negative attitudes towards hearing loss/treatment were common, and experiences of family and friends influenced attitudes, but lack of urgency was the primary barrier to screening completion. Respondents favored routine primary care-based hearing screening for older adults, but clinic personnel noted challenges of time, space, workflow, and reimbursement., Discussion and Implications: Findings favor greater routinization of hearing screening in primary care. Routinization will be enhanced by improved reimbursement for screening and follow-up; specialist engagement with primary care and the public (including leveraging older adults' social networks); and further research on specific integration options., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Dr. Francis reports serving on the Surgical Advisory Boards for Advanced Bionics and Med-El. No other author reports a conflict of interest outside of funding for the study., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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)., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2022 The Authors.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Association for Research in Otolaryngology.)

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)., Competing Interests: JRD reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, participation on the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) and the National Institute on Aging ACHIEVE (Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders) DSMB, and participation on the Board of Directors of the Hearing Health Foundation and on the Executive Council of the Acoustical Society of America. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest., (© 2021 The Authors.)

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.

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.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest L. M. Koponen, S. M. Goetz, and A. V. Peterchev are inventors on patents and patent applications on TMS technology including TMS devices with reduced acoustic noise. S. M. Goetz has received research funding from Magstim Inc. Related to TMS technology, A. V. Peterchev has received research and travel support as well as patent royalties from Rogue Research; research and travel support, consulting fees, as well as equipment donation from Tal Medical/Neurex; patent application and research support from Magstim; equipment loans and hardware donations from MagVenture; and expert witness compensation from Neuronetics., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Contemporary techniques have greatly enhanced the contributions of human temporal bone (HTB) histopathology to our understanding of the mechanisms of human otologic disease and disease treatment. Herein, we review some of the most salient contributions of this research to disease management. The field of HTB histopathology is challenged by limited resources as applies to trained investigators, infrastructure, and well-equipped laboratories. This research provides insights into clinical otology that cannot be obtained by any other means. Measures should be taken to preserve and extend the contributions of HTB research.

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI) with mainstream education and deaf education with sign language for treatment of children with profound sensorineural hearing loss in low- and lower-middle income countries in Asia., Study Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study., Subjects and Methods: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3., Results: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39)., Conclusion: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.

Objectives : To assess the experiences of people with hearing loss in healthcare environments to characterize miscommunication and unmet needs, and guide recommendations for improving outcomes and access. Methods : Anonymous survey developed by subject-matter experts was posted on a large national hearing-loss consumer and advocacy organization website and email listserv. Data were collected and managed via RedCAP. Results : Responses were received from 1581 individuals. Respondents reported moderate or significant difficulty communicating with all listed providers. Three communication situations emerged as often presenting communication difficulties: hearing one's name when called in the waiting room, hearing when the speaker's back was turned, and hearing when communicating by telephone. Despite 93% of respondents indicating they sometimes or often let providers know about their hearing loss, 29.3% of all respondents still reported that no arrangements were made to improve communication. Conclusions : This study clearly demonstrates the ongoing difficulties faced by individuals with hearing loss, particularly older adults, as they attempt to navigate both providers and situations associated with a typical primary care office visit. Clinical Implications : Inexpensive and efficient changes to improve communication include (1) Improving one-on-one provider communication by facing the individual with good lighting, clear speaking, and not obstructing one's mouth; (2) Environmental changes such as using visual or tactile alerting devices in waiting rooms and adding noise-dampening carpeting and curtains; and (3) Avoiding telephones and conveying health information in writing.

Objective: To develop a clinical consensus statement on the use of balloon dilation of the eustachian tube (BDET)., Methods: An expert panel of otolaryngologists was assembled with nominated representatives of general otolaryngology and relevant subspecialty societies. The target population was adults 18 years or older who are candidates for BDET because of obstructive eustachian tube dysfunction (OETD) in 1 or both ears for 3 months or longer that significantly affects quality of life or functional health status. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion into clinical statements that met a standardized definition of consensus., Results: After 3 iterative Delphi method surveys, 28 statements met the predefined criteria for consensus, while 28 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 3 categories for the purposes of presentation and discussion: (1) patient criteria, (2) perioperative considerations, and (3) outcomes., Conclusion: This panel reached consensus on several statements that clarify diagnosis and perioperative management of OETD. Lack of consensus on other statements likely reflects knowledge gaps regarding the role of BDET in managing OETD. Expert panel consensus may provide helpful information for the otolaryngologist considering the use of BDET for the management of patients with OETD.

Hearing loss is one of the most common yet unrecognized impairments experienced by adults, especially as they age. Mental health investigators and practitioners require better understanding of hearing loss, its association with psychiatric disorders, and the treatment of these disorders in the presence of hearing loss as well as the treatment of hearing loss itself. In this review, the authors briefly explore the global burden of hearing loss. Next we provide an overview of the extant literature on hearing loss associated with cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety disorders, psychoses, and quality of life with attention focused on the strength of the association, possible mechanisms explaining the association, data on treatment options specific to these disorders, and future research opportunities for these disorders. Current approaches to the treatment of hearing loss are presented, including hearing aids, rehabilitation including psychotherapies, surgical procedures (specifically cochlear implants), and induction loops connected to telecoils. Finally, cutting edge research into the pathophysiology and potential biological treatments of hearing loss is described.

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe patterns of corticosteroid treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to evaluate effectiveness based on delivery mode (oral vs intratympanic vs both)., Study Design: Cross-sectional repeated measures., Setting: Patients were recruited from practices within the Creating Healthcare Excellence through Education and Research (CHEER) Network. CHEER is a National Institutes of Health-funded nationwide network of 30 community and academic otolaryngology practice sites., Subjects and Methods: A subset of 117 patients who had been treated with steroids for sudden sensorineural hearing loss were recruited from within a larger initial CHEER Network study on clinical practice guideline compliance. Outcomes included audiometric and speech scores and patient-perceived improvement. Descriptive analyses, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Fisher exact tests were run., Results: Two categories (oral and simultaneous oral + intratympanic) had adequate sample sizes to support statistical comparison of treatment results. Improvements were seen in both audiometry and speech testing scores; 57% of patients self-reported improvement perceived as either minor or major. There were no significant differences in degree of improvement between these treatment groups., Conclusions: We observed that a majority of steroid-treated patients demonstrated hearing improvement, but this improvement did not meet criteria for statistical significance. As in other studies on this topic, the relatively small sample size may have prevented differentiation of effectiveness among steroid treatments. We propose that the use of alternative approaches, such as pragmatic clinical trials and multidisciplinary electronic health record systems and megadatabases, may hold the most promise for an approach to best practice development.

Objective To evaluate the prevalence of migraine disease in an otolaryngologic cohort and migraine-related otologic and sinonasal symptoms in this population. Study Design Cross-sectional study utilizing the CHEER (Creating Healthcare Excellence through Education and Research) network for recruitment. Setting Patients were recruited in a cross-sectional and pragmatic manner in 14 CHEER sites between June 2015 and March 2017 (9 academic, 5 community based). Subjects and Methods Patients were included if they were aged ≥18 years and seen for any concern that was not head and neck cancer. Patients with any history of brain abnormality or headaches that began within 2 weeks of a medical illness, trauma, or head injury were excluded. Patients were screened for migraine with a validated instrument. If they screened positive on the Migraine Assessment Tool (MAT+), the subjects also filled out validated and custom questionnaires for sinonasal, otologic, and migraine-specific symptoms. Results Of 1458 patients screened, 235 (16.1%) screened positive for migraine (MAT+), which is higher than general population (13%, P < .001). The MAT+ group was significantly younger (47.2 vs 55.6 years of age, P < .001) and predominantly women (80.0% vs 55.9%, P < .001). The MAT+ cohort commonly reported ear- and sinus-related symptoms, such as tinnitus (70.5%), ear pressure (61.9%), balance problems (82%), facial pressure (85%), and rhinorrhea (49.9%). There were significantly higher levels of sinus burden with higher levels of dizziness handicap, Jonckheere-Terpstra test = 11,573.00, z = 7.471, P < .001. Conclusion Migraine disease has a higher prevalence in an otolaryngologic cohort than in the general population, presenting with a high rate of sinonasal and otologic symptoms that may be due to or exacerbated by migraines.

Objectives/hypothesis: To analyze specific patterns of Twitter usage using common references to hearing loss, and characterize the virtual public that comprises the hearing loss community to inform hearing loss stakeholders for opportunities for engagement and outreach., Study Design: Social media network analysis., Methods: Twitter tweets were sampled from July 2016 to September 2016 using #hearing, #hearingloss, #deaf, #hearingimpairment, #hardofhearing, #deafness, #hearingmatters, #hearinghealth, and #hearingimpaired tags. User and Twitter social community metrics were examined including temporal trends, tweet content, user activity, tweet reach, and an analysis of the tweets' social network., Results: We identified and analyzed 49,208 tweets from July 2016 to September 2016 with tags relevant to hearing loss. Of the 100 most active Twitter accounts, organizations owned 67% compared to 33% owned by individuals. Commercial/for profit and informational organizations were the most common organization account owners (26% and 16%, respectively). Five unique tweets were identified as each having a reach of over 100,000 Twitter users, with the greatest reach exceeding 250,000 users. Temporal analysis identified marked retweet outliers (>300 retweets per hour) that corresponded with a widely publicized event involving the dismissal of a deaf employee from a fast-food chain store., Conclusions: Twitter accounts owned by organizations outnumbered individual accounts, and commercial/for profit user accounts were the most frequently active organization account type. Tweets pertaining to hearing loss may have a broad reach to a large community base. Analyses of social media use can be helpful in discovering issues of interest to the hearing loss community, as well as determining which users and organizations are dominating social network conversations., Level of Evidence: NA. Laryngoscope, 128:1453-1461, 2018., (© 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Hearing loss is the fourth leading contributor to years lived with a disability worldwide. Most recent estimates indicate that one-half of a billion people suffer from disabling hearing loss worldwide. The social and economic burden is significant. When attributing monetary value to years lived with disability owing to hearing loss, there is greater than $US750 billion lost each year globally. There are numerous contributors to hearing loss, including congenital, infectious, noise exposure, age-related, traumatic, and immune-mediated causes. Understanding the pathophysiology of these factors allows for the development of preventative and treatment strategies specific to the underlying cause., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2015, approximately half a billion people had disabling hearing loss, about 6·8% of the world's population. These numbers are substantially higher than estimates published before 2013, and point to the growing importance of hearing loss and global hearing health care. In this Review, we describe the burden of hearing loss and offer our and others' recommendations for halting and then reversing the continuing increases in this burden. Low-cost possibilities exist for prevention of hearing loss, as do unprecedented opportunities to reduce the generally high treatment costs. These possibilities and opportunities could and should be exploited. Additionally, a comprehensive worldwide initiative like VISION 2020 but for hearing could provide a focus for support and also enable and facilitate the increased efforts that are needed to reduce the burden. Success would produce major personal and societal gains, including gains that would help to fulfil the "healthy lives" and "disability inclusive" goals in the UN's new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Infections affecting the middle ear are a common childhood occurrence. Some cases may present with ear discharge through a tympanic membrane perforation which may heal spontaneously. However, up to 5% or more cases of those affected have persistent ear discharge. A number of barriers contribute towards delayed presentation at health facilities for treatment of ear infections. We conducted a study to evaluate parents' and caregivers' knowledge and care seeking practices for ear infections in children under five in Gasabo district in Kigali, Rwanda., Methods: Parents/guardians ( n  = 810) were interviewed using a structured questionnaire to elicit their knowledge of ear infections in children under five and their attitude to seeking care for their children., Results: The mean age of the respondents was 31.27 years (SD = 7.88, range 17-83). Considering an average of knowledge parameters which included causes, symptoms, prevention, treatment and consequences of ear infections, we found that 76.6% (622) of respondents were knowledgeable about ear infections. We defined a positive practice as seeking medical treatment (community health workers or health facility) and this was found in 89.1% (722) respondents. Correlating knowledge with choice of seeking treatment, respondents were 33% less likely to practice medical pluralism (OR = 0.33, CI 0.11-0.97, P  = 0.043) if they were familiar with infections. Moreover, urban dweller were 1.7 times more likely to know ear infections compared to rural dwellers (OR = 1.70, CI 1.22-2.38, P  = 0.002)., Conclusion: The majority of respondents had good knowledge and positive attitudes and practices about ear infection. However, medical pluralism was common. There is need to improve the community's awareness and access to primary health care facilities for the care of ear infections especially in rural areas of Rwanda.

Objectives: Recent studies have introduced middle ear volume (MEV) as a novel determinant of perforation-induced conductive hearing loss (CHL) in a mechanism driven by trans-tympanic membrane pressure differences. The primary aims of this preliminary report are to: 1) correlate CHL with perforation size; 2) describe the relationship between CHL and MEV; and 3) compare CHL across a range of cholesteatoma involvement., Design: A retrospective pilot study was performed in 31 subjects with audiometry indicative of conductive hearing loss, temporal bone CT scans, and no prior middle ear surgery. Perforation size and MEV were analyzed with respect to CHL in a cohort of 10 perforated ears with no cholesteatoma. CHLs were compared in 3 groups defined by extent of cholesteatoma involvement., Results: Ears with large and small perforations showed mean ABG values of 32.0 ± 15.7 dB and 16.0 ± 16.4 dB, respectively. A direct relationship was observed between MEV and CHL for ears with large perforations across all frequencies, whereas this relationship for small perforations was frequency-dependent. Finally, a statistically significant increase in CHL was found across ears with increasing cholesteatoma involvement at 1000 Hz (χ 2 (2) = 9.786, p = 0.008), 2000 Hz (χ 2 (2) = 8.455, p = 0.015), and 4000 Hz (χ 2 (2) = 8.253, p = 0.016)., Conclusions: These pilot data suggest that greater perforation-induced conductive hearing losses may be associated with larger perforation sizes and cholesteatoma. The correlation between MEV and CHL may require additional study.

Objective: To critically review and evaluate the proposed mechanisms and documented results of the therapeutics currently in active clinical drug trials for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss., Data Sources: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Trials registry, MEDLINE/PubMed., Study Selection & Data Extraction: A review of the NIH Clinical Trials registry identified candidate hearing loss therapies, and supporting publications were acquired from MEDLINE/PubMed. Proof-of-concept, therapeutic mechanisms, and clinical outcomes were critically appraised., Data Synthesis: Twenty-two active clinical drug trials registered in the United States were identified, and six potentially therapeutic molecules were reviewed. Of the six molecules reviewed, four comprised mechanisms pertaining to mitigating oxidative stress pathways that presumably lead to inner ear cell death. One remaining therapy sought to manipulate the cell death cascade, and the last remaining therapy was a novel cell replacement therapy approach to introduce a transcription factor that promotes hair cell regeneration., Conclusion: A common theme in recent clinical trials registered in the United States appears to be the targeting of cell death pathways and influence of oxidant stressors on cochlear sensory neuroepithelium. In addition, a virus-delivered cell replacement therapy would be the first of its kind should it prove safe and efficacious. Significant challenges for bringing these bench-to-bedside therapies to market remain. It is never assured that results in non-human animal models translate to effective therapies in the setting of human biology. Moreover, as additional processes are described in association with hearing loss, such as an immune response and loss of synaptic contacts, additional pathways for targeting become available.

Introduction: Middle ear volume (MEV) is a clinically relevant parameter across middle ear diseases. MEV values between these techniques have never before been tested for agreement in ears with perforated tympanic membranes (TMs)., Methods: Middle ears were identified from 36 patients ranging 18-89 years of age with TM perforations who underwent tympanometry and temporal bone computed tomography (CT) between 2005 and 2015. MEVs calculated by both tympanometry and three-dimensional volume reconstruction (3DVR) were analyzed for agreement using Bland Altman plots. The differences between tympanometric and 3DVR MEV values for each given middle ear were characterized across MEV quartiles (1 = smallest; 4 = largest) and across increasing states of middle ear disease using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon testing with Bonferroni correction., Results: Bland Altman plots demonstrated significant disagreement between MEV measurement techniques. Differences between tympanometric (T) and 3DVR MEV values were significantly greater with increasing average (i.e. (T+3DVR)/2)) MEV per linear regression (p < 0.0001). Significance was demonstrated between fourth and first average MEV quartiles (p = 0.0024), fourth and second quartiles (p = 0.0024), third and first quartiles (p = 0.0048), and third and second quartiles (p = 0.048). Absolute MEV difference was not significantly different across varying states of middle ear disease (p = 0.44)., Conclusion: Statistically and clinically significant disagreement was demonstrated between tympanometric and 3DVR MEV values. Studies that vary in MEV estimation techniques may be expected to demonstrate significantly different results. These preliminary results suggest that clinicians should endeavor to seek further confirmation when interpreting high tympanometric MEV values.

Objectives: To review evidence regarding the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) among children and adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss., Study Design: Narrative review., Methods: Publications related to quality of life (QoL) and costs of care in CI were acquired through searches in English-language databases. Studies were included if they had identified the HRQoL attainment, cost of care, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness associated with CI., Results: 57 studies were critically reviewed. The QoL outcome metrics used in these articles were divided into 2 categories - generic and condition specific. In studies investigating children, many reported no significant difference in QoL attainment between CI recipients and normal-hearing peers. In adults, significant improvements in QoL after implantation and higher QoL than in their nonimplanted (hearing-aided) peers were frequently reported. Studies involving an older adult cohort reported significant improvement in QoL after implantation, which was often independent of audiological performance. Overall, the calculated cost-utility ratios consistently met the threshold of cost acceptance, indicating acceptable values for expenditures on CI., Conclusions: Considerable work has been done on the QoL attainment and health economic implications of CI. Unilateral CI across all age groups leads to reported sustained benefits in the recipients' overall and disease-specific QoL. With increased cost associated with bilateral CI, further study is needed to characterize its costs and benefits with respect to the recipients' health, well-being, and contributions to society., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Middle ear infections are common in children, and delay in diagnosis and treatment may result in complications such as delays in speech and language development and deafness. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and care seeking behaviour for middle ear infections in children under five years in Kigali city. We conducted a cross-sectional study among 810 children aged 6-59 months in Gasabo district of Kigali city, Rwanda. The prevalence of middle ear infections was 5.8%, of whom 4% had chronic suppurative otitis media. A child was less likely to develop middle ear infections if they lived in an urban setting (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.285-0.958) but more likely to develop middle ear infections if exposed to household smoke (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.18-5.46). Parents were unlikely to know that their child had an ear infection (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06-0.34). Middle ear infection remains a public health problem in Rwanda but many parents were not aware of its presence in the affected children. There is a need to raise awareness of parents about ear infection and to promote early care seeking from qualified health workers.

Hypothesis: Cochlear implantation (CI) and deaf education are cost effective management strategies of childhood profound sensorineural hearing loss in Latin America., Background: CI has been widely established as cost effective in North America and Europe and is considered standard of care in those regions, yet cost effectiveness in other economic environments has not been explored. With 80% of the global hearing loss burden existing in low- and middle-income countries, developing cost effective management strategies in these settings is essential. This analysis represents the continuation of a global assessment of CI and deaf education cost effectiveness., Methods: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela participated in the study. A Disability Adjusted Life Years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. Experts from each country supplied cost estimates from known costs and published data. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost effectiveness was determined using the World Health Organization standard of cost effectiveness ratio/gross domestic product per capita (CER/GDP)<3., Results: Deaf education was very cost effective in all countries (CER/GDP 0.07-0.93). CI was cost effective in all countries (CER/GDP 0.69-2.96), with borderline cost effectiveness in the Guatemalan sensitivity analysis (Max CER/GDP 3.21)., Conclusion: Both cochlear implantation and deaf education are widely cost effective in Latin America. In the lower-middle income economy of Guatemala, implant cost may have a larger impact. GDP is less influential in the middle- and high-income economies included in this study.

Objectives: To forecast national Medicaid prescription volumes for common ototopical antibiotics, and correlate prescription volumes with internet user search interest using Google Trends (GT)., Study Design: National United States Medicaid prescription and GT user search database analysis., Methods: Quarterly national Medicaid summary drug utilization data and weekly GT search engine data for ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone (CD), ofloxacin (OF), and Cortisporin (CS) ototopicals were obtained from January 2008 to July 2014. Time series analysis was used to assess prescription seasonality, Holt-Winter's method for forecasting quarterly prescription volumes, and Pearson correlations to compare GT and Medicaid data., Results: Medicaid prescription volumes demonstrated sinusoidal seasonality for OF (r = 0.91), CS (r = 0.71), and CD (r = 0.62) with annual peaks in July, August, and September. In 2017, OF was forecasted to be the most widely prescribed ototopical, followed by CD. CS was the least prescribed, and volumes were forecasted to decrease 9.0% by 2017 from 2014. GT user search interest demonstrated analogous sinusoidal seasonality and significant correlations with Medicaid data prescriptions for CD (r = 0.38, p = 0.046), OF (r = 0.74, p < 0.001), CS (r = 0.49, p = 0.008)., Conclusion: We found that OF, CD, and CS ototopicals have sinusoidal seasonal variation with Medicaid prescription volume peaks occurring in the summer. After 2012, OF was the most commonly prescribed ototopical, and this trend was forecasted to continue. CS use was forecasted to decrease. Google user search interest in these ototopical agents demonstrated analogous seasonal variation. Analyses of GT for interest in ototopical antibiotics may be useful for health care providers and administrators as a complementary method for assessing healthcare utilization trends.

Objectives: To explore self-reported hearing testing access for adults in a nationally representative survey., Methods: Demographic and audiologic adult survey respondent variables in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database 2011-2012 cohort were examined. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: In all, 5864 adult respondents were analyzed. Two-thirds (65.6%) of respondents reported having hearing tested 10 or more years ago or never tested at all. Male gender (OR = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.31-3.94), having a health care visit less than 3 years ago (OR = 8.19; 95% CI, 2.09-32.2), and having health insurance (OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.08-2.77) were significantly associated with respondents reporting having a hearing test less than 10 years ago. Mexican American race (OR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.83) and respondent age 40 to 59 (OR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81) were significantly associated with respondents reporting having a hearing test 10 or more years prior or never., Conclusion: A significant proportion of the adult population reports having hearing tested 10 or more years prior or never at all. Effort will be required to identify adults who have hearing loss and may benefit from auditory rehabilitation such as hearing aids or the cochlear implant., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a highly effective intervention for children with advanced hearing loss who cannot benefit from amplification. Despite the established benefits of CI, it is likely that not all children who are potential candidates for CI receive this intervention. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of North Carolina children who are candidates for and end up undergoing CI, and to detect whether barriers exist that prevent access to care for unimplanted candidates., Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of 1,501 children whose families were served by BEGINNINGS from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2013. All families of children identified as potential CI candidates who were able to participate in the study (n = 141) were contacted by BEGINNINGS parent educators who queried parents about their child's use of technology and any reasons for lack of use of technology., Results: Overall, 60.9% of children diagnosed with profound, severe-profound, severe, moderate-severe, or moderate-profound hearing loss received at least 1 cochlear implant. For children with profound hearing loss, 88.9% had a least 1 cochlear implant. Common reasons for the decision not to perform CI included parental preference and anatomical issues unfavorable to CI., Limitations: Some information was not included in the database, including socioeconomic status and the child's age at the time of intervention., Conclusion: The rate of CI for North Carolina children who have advanced hearing loss is greater than 60% and significantly higher for children with greater degrees of impairment. No significant financial or geographic barriers to CI were identified. We hypothesize that the high rate of CI for appropriate candidates in North Carolina is due in part to parental access to counseling and education provided through BEGINNINGS., (©2016 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study is to describe the presentation and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss for patients seen in academic and community-based practices within the context of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss." The intention is to use these findings to guide implementation strategies and quality improvement initiatives and as pilot data for the development of clinical research initiatives., Study Design: A cross-sectional study of patients with sudden hearing loss., Setting: Patients were recruited from practices within the Creating Healthcare Excellence through Education and Research (CHEER) network. The CHEER network is an National Institutes of Health-funded network of 30 otolaryngology sites across the country, half of which are community based and half of which are academic practices., Subjects and Methods: A total of 173 patients were recruited. Data were gathered via custom questionnaires collected by study site coordinators and entered into a secure online platform. Descriptive analyses and correlation statistics were run with SAS 9.3.1., Results: Of the 13 guideline statements in the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss, 11 statements were evaluable through this study. Compliance for otolaryngologists was >95% for key action statements (KASs) 1, 3, and 6; 90% to 95% for KASs 5 and 10; and <90% for KASs 7 and 13. Compliance was <45% for nonotolaryngologists for KASs 3 and 5-7., Conclusions: There is opportunity for nonotolaryngologists to improve for statements 3 and 5-7. Otolaryngologists are compliant with many of the KASs overall, but there is significant room for improvement., (© American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.)

Objective: (1) Review evidence for the use of oral diuretic medications in the management of Ménière's disease. (2) Analyze therapy-related hearing and vertigo outcomes., Data Sources: Literature was obtained through directed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO Host, Cochrane Reviews, and linked citations through seminal papers. We searched independent electronic databases for articles that reported the use of diuretics in patients with Ménière's disease., Review Methods: All articles of level 4 evidence or higher, per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, were included with no limit for number of patients, duration of therapy, or follow-up period. Two independent investigators reviewed the articles for inclusion eligibility. Outcomes were tabulated, including subjective or quantitative measures of hearing, tinnitus, vertigo episode frequency, and medication adverse effects., Results: Nineteen articles were included from 1962 to 2012 from 11 countries. Twelve retrospective case series, 4 randomized controlled trials, 2 case-control trials, and 1 prospective case series were identified. Six studies investigated isosorbide; 5, hydrochlorothiazide; 2, acetazolamide; 2, chlorthalidone; and 1 each of betahistine, hydrochlorothiazide, chlorthalidone, acetazolamide, hydrochlorothiazide-triamterene, and nimodipine. Eight (42.1%) studies reported hearing outcomes improvement. Fifteen (79.0%) studies reported vertigo outcomes improvement. Ten (52.6%) studies reported no side effects, and 4 studies (21.1%) reported abdominal discomfort. No significant morbidity or mortality was reported in any study., Conclusion: Multiple low evidence-level studies report that oral diuretic therapy may be beneficial in the medical management of Ménière's disease. Improvement in vertigo episode frequency was consistently reported, with less convincing evidence for improvement in hearing outcomes., (© American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.)

An osseointegrated implant (e.g. bone-anchored hearing aid, BAHA) is a surgically implantable device for unilateral sensorineural and unilateral or bilateral conductive hearing loss in patients who otherwise cannot use or do not prefer a conventional air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). The specific indications for an osseointegrated implant are evolving and dependent upon the country or regulatory body overseeing the provision of these devices. However, there are general groups of patients who would be likely to benefit, one such group being patients with congenital aural atresia. Given the anatomical aberrancies with aural atresia, these subjects cannot wear ACHAs. Another group of patients who may benefit from an osseointegrated implant over an ACHA are patients with chronically draining otological infections. As the provision of an osseointegrated implant requires a surgical procedure, there are inherent direct and indirect costs associated with its use beyond those required for an ACHA. Consideration of outcomes and cost-effectiveness for the osseointegrated implant versus the ACHA is prudent prior to making policy decisions in a setting of limited health care resources. We performed a mini review on all available cost-effectiveness analyses of osseointegrated implants published in Medline. There are only 2 contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses published to date. There is limited quality of life data available for patients living with an osseointegrated implant. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of the osseointegrated implant, specifically the BAHA, compared to conventional hearing aid devices remains unclear. However, there are clear indications for the BAHA when a standard hearing aid cannot be used (e.g. chronic draining ear) or in single-sided severe-to-profound hearing loss with reasonable hearing in the contralateral ear. The BAHA should not be considered interchangeable with the ACHA with regard to cost-effectiveness, but rather considered as an effective option for the patient for the correct indication., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: To determine if providers prescribe more affordable topical antibacterial therapy for patients who are economically disadvantaged or come from economically disadvantaged communities., Study Design: Prescription drug database review., Setting: Large academic hospital network., Subjects and Methods: Ototopical prescription records of 2416 adults and children presenting with acute and chronic otologic infections from 2009 to 2013 were reviewed. Prescription, patient, provider, and institution variables including diagnosis, prescription type, demographics, health insurance status, healthcare provider type and setting were analyzed., Results: Otitis externa and acute otitis media were the most common diagnoses. Non-OHNS (Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery) providers served 82% of all patients. OHNS providers prescribed proportionally less fluoroquinolone, and more brand-name antibiotics compared to non-OHNS providers. Adults were more likely to receive a non-fluoroquinolone antibiotic and a generic prescription versus pediatric patients. Patients who self-identified as 'white' ethnicity received proportionally more fluoroquinolone prescriptions than patients who identified as 'non-white,' but there was no difference in provider type. The proportion of fluoroquinolone prescriptions was significantly higher in patients from low-poverty counties, however poverty level was not associated with patients seeing a particular provider type. The majority of our patients had commercial insurance, followed by Medicaid. Medicare patients had the lowest proportion of fluoroquinolone antibiotic prescriptions, and were less likely to receive fluoroquinolone prescriptions versus commercial insurance. Non-insured patients received proportionally more generic versus brand prescriptions than insured patients., Conclusion: Our results indicate potential provider, patient demographic, and financial factors producing considerable variability in the prescribing patterns for topical antibiotics for common otologic infections., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a common intervention for severe-to-profound hearing loss in high-income countries, but is not commonly available to children in low resource environments. Owing in part to the device costs, CI has been assumed to be less economical than deaf education for low resource countries. The purpose of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of the two interventions for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in a model using disability adjusted life years (DALYs)., Methods: Cost estimates were derived from published data, expert opinion, and known costs of services in Nicaragua. Individual costs and lifetime DALY estimates with a 3% discounting rate were applied to both two interventions. Sensitivity analysis was implemented to evaluate the effect on the discounted cost of five key components: implant cost, audiology salary, speech therapy salary, number of children implanted per year, and device failure probability., Results: The costs per DALY averted are $5,898 and $5,529 for CI and deaf education, respectively. Using standards set by the WHO, both interventions are cost effective. Sensitivity analysis shows that when all costs set to maximum estimates, CI is still cost effective., Conclusion: Using a conservative DALY analysis, both CI and deaf education are cost-effective treatment alternatives for severe-to-profound SNHL. CI intervention costs are not only influenced by the initial surgery and device costs but also by rehabilitation costs and the lifetime maintenance, device replacement, and battery costs. The major CI cost differences in this low resource setting were increased initial training and infrastructure costs, but lower medical personnel and surgery costs.

Hypothesis: Cochlear implantation and deaf education are cost effective in Sub-Saharan Africa., Background: Cost effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation has been well established in developed countries but is unknown in low resource settings, where access to the technology has traditionally been limited. With incidence of severe-to-profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss 5 to 6 times higher in low/middle-income countries than the United States and Europe, developing cost-effective management strategies in these settings is critical., Methods: Costs were obtained from experts in Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Malawi using known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability adjusted life years (DALY) model was applied using 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost effectiveness was determined using the WHO standard of cost-effectiveness ratio/gross domestic product per capita (CER/GDP) less than 3., Results: Cochlear implantation was cost effective in South Africa and Nigeria, with CER/GDP of 1.03 and 2.05, respectively. Deaf education was cost effective in all countries investigated, with CER/GDP ranging from 0.55 to 1.56. The most influential factor in the sensitivity analysis was device cost, with the cost-effective threshold reached in all countries using discounted device costs that varied directly with GDP., Conclusion: Cochlear implantation and deaf education are equally cost effective in lower-middle and upper-middle income economies of Nigeria and South Africa. Device cost may have greater impact in the emerging economies of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Malawi.