Assessment of Disease-Specific and General Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Hearing Health

Mitigation of Effect Modification by Psychological Status in Patients With Hearing Loss

Importance

Although patient-reported outcomes provide valuable insights, these subjective data may not align with objective test results. Hearing loss is a pervasive problem, such that concordance between subjective perceptions of hearing ability and objective audiogram assessments would be beneficial.

Objectives

To determine (1) whether psychological status is an effect modifier of the association between subjective patient reports of hearing ability and objective audiometry results, and (2) whether any effect modification observed in standard static questionnaires would be either mitigated or exacerbated by adaptive testing based on Item Response Theory analyses.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This diagnostic study at a tertiary care center and community-based practice included consecutive adults who presented with queries related to hearing loss. Participants were recruited and enrolled and data analyses occurred from 2022 to 2024.

Exposures

Participants prospectively reported their hearing-specific abilities through either a standard static or adaptive version of the Inner Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) scale, alongside validated measures of their mental health and audiometry. Word recognition scores (WRS) and pure tone averages (PTA) were used to analyze audiometric testing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The association between subjective Inner EAR results and audiometry was evaluated. Stratified analyses were used to assess for effect modification by psychological status. The results of standard static and adaptive testing were compared.

Results

In this study of 395 patients (mean [range] age, 55.9 [18-89] years; 210 [53.2%] female), standard static Inner EAR mean scores were appropriately higher in patients with higher (better) WRS (50.7, 95% CI, 46.4-54.9), compared with patients with lower (worse) WRS (34.7, 95% CI, 24.3-45.1). However, among patients with worse mental health, there was no association between standard static Inner EAR scores and WRS. In contrast, adaptive Inner EAR mean scores were significantly higher for those with better WRS, regardless of mental health status. Thus, effect modification was observed in standard static assessments, whereas adaptive testing remained durably associated with audiometry, regardless of mental health.

Conclusions and Relevance

Psychological status was an effect modifier of the association between standard Inner EAR scale scores and audiometry, with a positive association observed only in those with better mental health. Adaptive testing scores, however, remained significantly associated with audiometry, even when mental status was worse. Adaptive testing may stabilize the association between subjective and objective hearing outcomes.

Normative Values for the Inner EAR Scale

OBJECTIVE

To determine normative values for the Inner Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (Inner EAR) scale, a validated instrument utilized to study the impact of hearing loss and potential treatments.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational outcomes study.

SETTING

Academic medical center and community care sites.

METHODS

We included patients who were at least 18 years of age and completed the Inner EAR scale, pure-tone audiometry, and word recognition score assessment. Based on audiometry results, patients were categorized as having: (1) normal bilateral hearing, (2) unilateral hearing loss, and (3) bilateral hearing loss. The distributions of Inner EAR scale scores were assessed within each category. Fisher's exact test was utilized to determine whether data-driven threshold values could discriminate among the 3 clinical groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients with hearing-related complaints met inclusion criteria. Mean Inner EAR scores for patients with bilateral hearing loss (29.2, interquartile range [IQR] 10-41.5), unilateral hearing loss (38.9, IQR 23-49), and normal hearing (46.6, IQR 31-62) were significantly different (analysis of variance F < 0.0001). An Inner EAR score threshold of 50 supported the ability to statistically significantly discriminate between bilateral hearing loss and normal hearing (p = .003), as well as between unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing (p = .015).

CONCLUSION

An Inner EAR score normative threshold value of 50 provides significant discriminatory ability between normal hearing and unilateral or bilateral hearing loss on audiometry. Normative values provide useful, frequently referenced data when assessing responses to treatment. Based on these data, this threshold may help distinguish patients with and without perceived functional impact from hearing loss.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Oral Furosemide Among Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Pilot Study

Introduction

Diuretic use may reduce volume-related complications in hemodialysis. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of furosemide in patients with hemodialysis-dependent kidney failure.

Methods

We conducted an open label, single-arm, 18-week, dose titration pilot study of oral furosemide (maximum dose 320 mg/day) among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis who reported at least 1 cup of urine output per day. The primary efficacy outcome was an increase from baseline to a specified threshold of 24-hour urine volume, with the threshold based on baseline urine volume (<200 ml/day vs. ≥200 ml/day). Safety outcomes included hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia, and tolerability was assessed by prespecified patient-reported symptoms.

Results

Of the 39 participants, 28 (72%) received the expected furosemide dose, 3 (8%) underwent dose reduction, 5 (12%) discontinued furosemide without dose reduction, and 3 (8%) underwent dose reduction and subsequently discontinued furosemide. The median (quartile 1, quartile 3) baseline 24-hour urine volume was 290 ml (110, 740), and the maximum, average daily study furosemide dose ranged from 69 mg/day to 320 mg/d. The urine output efficacy outcome was met by 12 (33%), 11 (33%), and 7 (22%) participants at weeks 5, 12, and 18, respectively, in the intention-to-treat analysis, and by 12 (39%), 9 (35%), and 7 (28%) participants at weeks 5, 12, and 18, respectively, in the on-treatment analysis. There were no electrolyte, furosemide level, or patient-reported hearing change safety events.

Conclusion

Furosemide was generally safe and well tolerated, but only one-third of participants met the efficacy definition at week 5. The clinical importance of the efficacy findings is uncertain.

Critérios para a classificação do grau da perda auditiva e proteção social de pessoas com essa deficiência

RESUMO Objetivos: identificar critérios adotados nacional e internacionalmente para classificação do grau da perda auditiva, compará-los com o estabelecido na legislação brasileira e discutir as possíveis consequências dessa legislação para a proteção social de Pessoas com Deficiência (PcD) auditiva. Métodos: realizou-se uma revisão narrativa para a identificação dos critérios utilizados nessa classificação. A busca foi realizada em abril de 2020, a partir das plataformas BVS e PUBMED. Foram incluídos estudos publicados entre 2015 e 2019, em inglês, espanhol e português, sobre pesquisas primárias realizadas com seres humanos e menção explícita aos critérios utilizados para a classificação do grau da perda auditiva. Revisão da Literatura: observou-se que há uma predileção pela média entre as frequências de 0,5, 1, 2 e 4 kHz. A legislação brasileira não segue esse critério, o que pode ser uma barreira para o acesso das PcD auditiva aos programas de proteção social. Considerações Finais: não há consenso sobre qual é o melhor critério, todavia há predominância de utilização do considerado mais abrangente para a avaliação auditiva, que não é o legalmente adotado no Brasil. É necessário um debate sobre o critério legal brasileiro, a fim de promover os direitos sociais instituídos para parte das PcD auditiva no Brasil.

Criteria to classify degrees of hearing loss and the social protection of people with this disability

ABSTRACT Purpose: to identify criteria used nationally and internationally to classify degrees of hearing loss, compare them with what is established in the Brazilian law, and discuss possible consequences of such a law on the social protection of people with hearing loss. Methods: a narrative review was conducted to identify the criteria used in this classification, by searching the platforms VHL and PubMed in April 2020. It included primary human research explicitly mentioning the criteria used to classify the degree of hearing loss, published between 2015 and 2019 in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Literature Review: there is a preference for the four-frequency mean at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The Brazilian law does not follow these criteria, which may pose a barrier to people with hearing loss, hindering their access to social protection programs. Final Considerations: there is no consensus on the best criteria, although the most encompassing ones in hearing assessment predominate - which are not the ones legally used in Brazil. It is necessary to debate the Brazilian legal criteria to ensure existing social rights to part of people with hearing loss in Brazil.