Development and validation of DeciBHAL-US: A novel microsimulation model of hearing loss across the lifespan in the United States

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

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss affects approximately 1·6 billion individuals worldwide. Many cases are preventable. We aimed to estimate the annual number of new hearing loss cases that could be attributed to meningitis, otitis media, congenital rubella syndrome, cytomegalovirus, and ototoxic medications, specifically aminoglycosides, platinum-based chemotherapeutics, and antimalarials.

METHODS

We used a targeted and a rapid systematic literature review to calculate yearly global incidences of each cause of hearing loss. We estimated the prevalence of hearing loss for each presumed cause. For each cause, we calculated the global number of yearly hearing loss cases associated with the exposure by multiplying the estimated exposed population by the prevalence of hearing loss associated with the exposure, accounting for mortality when warranted.

FINDINGS

An estimated 257·3 million people per year are exposed to these preventable causes of hearing loss, leading to an estimated 33·8 million new cases of hearing loss worldwide per year. Most hearing loss cases were among those with exposure to ototoxic medications (19·6 million [range 12·6 million-27·9 million] from short-course aminoglycoside therapy and 12·3 million from antimalarials). We estimated that 818 000 cases of hearing loss were caused by otitis media, 346 000 by meningitis, 114 000 by cytomegalovirus, and 59 000 by congenital rubella syndrome.

INTERPRETATION

The global burden of preventable hearing loss is large. Hearing loss that is attributable to disease sequelae or ototoxic medications contributes substantially to the global burden of hearing loss. Prevention of these conditions should be a global health priority.

FUNDING

The US National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the US National Institute on Aging.

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.

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.

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.

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

Background

There is no published decision model for informing hearing health care resource allocation across the lifespan in low- and middle-income countries. We sought to validate the Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan International (DeciBHAL-I) in Chile, India, and Nigeria.

Methods

DeciBHAL-I simulates bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL) acquisition, SNHL progression, and hearing loss treatment. To inform model inputs, we identified setting-specific estimates including SNHL prevalence from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies, acute otitis media (AOM) incidence and prevalence of otitis-media related CHL from a systematic review, and setting-specific pediatric and adult hearing aid use prevalence. We considered a coefficient of variance root mean square error (CV-RMSE) of ≤15% to indicate good model fit.

Findings

The model-estimated prevalence of bilateral SNHL closely matched GBD estimates, (CV-RMSEs: 3.2-7.4%). Age-specific AOM incidences from DeciBHAL-I also achieved good fit (CV-RMSEs=5.0-7.5%). Model-projected chronic suppurative otitis media prevalence (1.5% in Chile, 4.9% in India, and 3.4% in Nigeria) was consistent with setting-specific estimates, and the incidence of otitis media-related CHL was calibrated to attain adequate model fit. DeciBHAL-projected adult hearing aid use in Chile (3.2-19.7% ages 65-85 years) was within the 95% confidence intervals of published estimates. Adult hearing aid prevalence from the model in India was 1.4-2.3%, and 1.1-1.3% in Nigeria, consistent with literature-based and expert estimates.

Interpretation

DeciBHAL-I reasonably simulates hearing loss natural history, detection, and treatment in Chile, India, and Nigeria. Future cost-effectiveness analyses might use DeciBHAL-I to inform global hearing health policy.

Funding

National Institutes of Health (3UL1-TR002553-03S3 and F30 DC019846).