Gene W. Bratt

Factors Affecting Sensitivity of Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions to Ototoxic Hearing Loss

Objectives: (1) To determine the ototoxicity detection rate (sensitivity) for distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) testing in adults who received ototoxic medications and experienced pure-tone threshold changes during the course of treatment; (2) to determine the extent to which DPOAE sensitivity to ototoxicity depends on the type of drug administered (platinum or antibiotic), magnitude of ototoxic threshold shifts, pre-exposure pure-tone threshold, and DPOAE data; and (3) to build a model to predict DPOAE sensitivity. Design: DPOAE and audiometric data were obtained as part of a prospective Veterans Affairs study investigating methods of ototoxicity monitoring. Data were analyzed from 90 ears of 53 subjects receiving ototoxic medications and showing significant hearing changes in at least one ear. Pure-tone threshold data were obtained at frequencies from 0.5 to 20 kHz, using 1/6-octave precision near the upper frequency limit of hearing. DPOAE data are reported for f2s from 0.8 to 8.0 kHz in 1/6-octave increments using primary levels (L1/L2) of 65/59 dB SPL and a primary frequency ratio (f2/f1) of 1.2. Test results were evaluated at various times during drug treatment to determine whether DPOAE level changes were associated with behavioral hearing changes. Univariate and multivariate analysis techniques were used to determine factors that affected DPOAE sensitivity to ototoxic damage. Results: Of the 90 ears examined, 82 (91%) had DPOAEs that could be monitored for changes. Sixty-four of these 82 ears (78%) had DPOAEs that were reduced or absent following drug treatment. DPOAE sensitivity to ototoxicity was unrelated to the type of ototoxic drug administered. Rather, DPOAE sensitivity depended on the magnitude of postexposure hearing changes and on variables related to pre-exposure audiogram and DPOAE measurements. Behavioral hearing changes not detected by DPOAEs were small on average (<7 dB). DPOAE sensitivity was reduced in ears with poorer pre-exposure hearing, and in ears with measurable DPOAE frequencies limited to f2s below 2.5 kHz or more than one octave from the frequency region where hearing change occurred. Results of logistic regression modeling showed that DPOAEs present at f2s greater than 2.5 kHz were associated with the eventual success of ototoxicity monitoring with DPOAEs. However, independent variables examined could not explain differences in the relative timing of behavioral and DPOAE changes. A roughly equivalent proportion of ears experienced DPOAE changes before, during, or after behavioral hearing changes. Conclusions: DPOAEs are a useful screening tool for ototoxicity in adults with pre-exposure hearing loss, but are less sensitive compared with a behavioral test method that targets thresholds near the upper limit of a subjects audible frequency range. Ears successfully monitored for ototoxicity with DPOAEs are those with better pre-exposure hearing, greater postexposure hearing changes, and baseline DPOAEs near the highest behavioral test frequencies and present at high f2s. Results suggest that successful monitoring of ototoxicity with DPOAEs may be predicted clinically by assessing the measurable DPOAE f2 frequency range and its relation to the highest behavioral test frequencies.

Tinnitus onset rates from chemotherapeutic agents and ototoxic antibiotics: results of a large prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To report on the incidence and relative risk of tinnitus onset from a variety of drug therapies known to be ototoxic. Two main questions were asked: (1) What is the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus among patients treated with cisplatin, carboplatin, or ototoxic antibiotic therapies? (2) Do commonly reported treatment or subject factors confound or modify the incidence of tinnitus onset? DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS A prospective observational study design was used to evaluate occurrence of significant otologic changes in 488 veterans (962 ears) receiving chemotherapeutic agents (cisplatin, carboplatin), ototoxic antibiotics (primarily aminoglycoside), or nonototoxic drugs (control medications). A subset of 260 veterans lacking tinnitus prior to drug exposure was used to compare rates of tinnitus onset. Subjects were tested prior to, during, and following their treatment. Planned comparisons using logistic regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and chi(2) statistics were made among groups by the type of medication taken, age, presence of preexisting hearing loss, days on drug, and cumulative dose of drug. RESULTS Baseline tinnitus rates were high (nearly 47%) relative to the general population of a similar age. Subjects with exposure to ototoxic medications had significantly increased risk for developing tinnitus. Those on chemotherapeutic agents were found to have the greatest risk. Cisplatin elevated the risk by 5.53 times while carboplatin increased the risk by 3.75 over nonototoxic control medications. Ototoxic antibiotics resulted in borderline risk (2.81) for new tinnitus. Contrary to other reports, we did not find that subject factors (increased age or pre-existing hearing loss) or treatment factors (days on drug or cumulative dose) contributed to rates of tinnitus onset during treatment. CONCLUSIONS This large prospective study confirms that new tinnitus during treatment is associated with chemotherapy and with certain ototoxic antibiotic treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin were found to be the most potent ototoxic agents causing tinnitus at much greater numbers than the other drugs studied. Implications for counseling and audiological resource allocation are discussed.

Real-world benefit from directional microphone hearing aids.

This article summarizes data from a 3-year, double-blinded study of directional hearing aid benefit. Ninety-four subjects in three hearing loss groups, all previous users of omnidirectional output-compression hearing aids, completed all aspects of the study. Participants were fit with new hearing aids for 1 month in a directional mode and 1 month in an omnidirectional mode. Following 1 month of use, subjects completed a number of objective and subjective measures of hearing aid outcome. Objective and subjective data were analyzed across hearing aid and hearing loss conditions. Subjects in all hearing loss groups exhibited better performance in the directional conditions for objective speech-in-noise measures; however, subjective data did not indicate a clear advantage for directional amplification. Results and clinical implications are discussed.

A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits.

Objective Although numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit, carefully controlled, multi-center clinical trials have not been conducted. A multi-center clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression. Design Patients (N = 360) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were studied using a double blind, three-period, three-treatment crossover design. The patients were fit with each of three programmable hearing aid circuits. Outcome tests were administered in the unaided condition at baseline and then after 3 mo usage of each circuit, the tests were administered in both aided and unaided conditions. The outcome test battery included tests of speech recognition, sound quality and subjective scales of hearing aid benefit, including patients’ overall rank-order rating of the three circuits. Results Each hearing aid circuit improved speech recognition markedly, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech in both quiet and noisy listening conditions. In addition, a significant reduction in the problems encountered in communication was observed. Some tests suggested that the two compression hearing aids provided a better listening experience than the peak clipping hearing aid. In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the compression limiting hearing aid more frequently than the other two hearing aids. Conclusions The three hearing aid circuits studied provide significant benefit both in quiet and in noisy listening situations. The two compression hearing aids appear to provide superior benefits compared to the linear circuit, although the differences between the hearing aids were smaller than the differences between unaided and aided conditions.

Coupler and real-ear measurement of hearing aid gain and output in the NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial.

Objective Because the NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial was conducted across eight clinical sites, rigorous control of the electroacoustic characteristics of the experimental devices was required. Design The parameters monitored included the gain and output of the approximately 720 hearing aids in the trial, measured both in the 2 cm3 coupler and in situ. Each measurement was repeated six times on each hearing aid across the 9-mo duration of the study to insure both the stability and the accuracy of the circuits under investigation. Results The gain data obtained in the coupler and in situ adequately demonstrated the stability of the instrument and the repeated measurements over time and across study sites. The output values produced by the experimental device also maintained acceptable constancy, both within and across treatment periods. Conclusions These measurements reflected satisfactory stability and sufficient accuracy within the circuits to achieve the intended goals of the study.

Style preference survey: a report on the psychometric properties and a cross-validation experiment.

BACKGROUND Several self-report measures exist that target different aspects of outcomes for hearing aid use. Currently, no comprehensive questionnaire specifically assesses factors that may be important for differentiating outcomes pertaining to hearing aid style. PURPOSE The goal of this work was to develop the Style Preference Survey (SPS), a questionnaire aimed at outcomes associated with hearing aid style differences. Two experiments were conducted. After initial item development, Experiment 1 was conducted to refine the items and to determine its psychometric properties. Experiment 2 was designed to cross-validate the findings from the initial experiment. RESEARCH DESIGN An observational design was used in both experiments. STUDY SAMPLE Participants who wore traditional, custom-fitted (TC) or open-canal (OC) style hearing aids from 3 mo to 3 yr completed the initial experiment. One-hundred and eighty-four binaural hearing aid users (120 of whom wore TC hearing aids and 64 of whom wore OC hearing aids) participated. A new sample of TC and OC users (n = 185) participated in the cross-validation experiment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Currently available self-report measures were reviewed to identify items that might differentiate between hearing aid styles, particularly preference for OC versus TC hearing aid styles. A total of 15 items were selected and modified from available self-report measures. An additional 55 items were developed through consensus of six audiologists for the initial version of the SPS. In the first experiment, the initial SPS version was mailed to 550 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 184 completed the SPS. Approximately three weeks later, a subset of participants (n = 83) completed the SPS a second time. Basic analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPS including subscale structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Based on the results of Experiment 1, the SPS was revised. A cross-validation experiment was then conducted using the revised version of the SPS to confirm the subscale structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in a new sample of participants. RESULTS The final factor analysis led to the ultimate version of the SPS, which had a total of 35 items encompassing five subscales: (1) Feedback, (2) Occlusion/Own Voice Effects, (3) Localization, (4) Fit, Comfort, and Cosmetics, and (5) Ease of Use. The internal consistency of the total SPS (Cronbachs α = .92) and of the subscales (each Cronbachs α > .75) was high. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) showed that the test-retest reliability of the total SPS (ICC = .93) and of the subscales (each ICC > .80) also was high. TC hearing aid users had significantly poorer outcomes than OC hearing aid users on 4 of the 5 subscales, suggesting that the SPS largely is responsive to factors related to style-specific differences. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that the SPS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable measure of outcomes related to style-specific, hearing aid preference.

Validation of the Home Hearing Test

BACKGROUND The Home Hearing Test™ (HHT) is an automated pure-tone threshold test that obtains an air-conduction audiogram at five test frequencies. It was developed to provide increased access to hearing testing and support home telehealth programs. PURPOSE The study was conducted as part of an audiology telehealth trial based at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN. Air-conduction audiograms obtained by the HHT were compared to results obtained in the clinic. RESEARCH DESIGN Prospective, repeated measures. STUDY SAMPLE Twenty-eight participants, aged 44-88 yr (mean = 65) were recruited from the Nashville U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs audiology clinic. Participants were required to have a Windows personal computer in the home and were self-reported to be comfortable with using computers. Two participants had normal hearing and 26 had hearing loss of various severities and configurations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Audiograms were obtained in the audiology clinic by experienced audiologists following standard clinical protocols. Participants were provided with a kit for installing HHT on their home computers. The HHT air-conduction audiogram is obtained with Automated Method for Testing Auditory Sensitivity (AMTAS(®)), described in previous publications. Threshold pairs (clinic versus HHT) were analyzed by determining distributions of threshold differences and absolute differences. These were compared to distributions of differences between manual threshold pairs obtained by two audiologists and AMTAS(®) versus manual threshold pairs obtained under laboratory conditions. RESULTS Threshold differences (clinic versus HHT) were slightly larger than differences between thresholds obtained by two audiologists and AMTAS(®) versus manual threshold differences obtained under laboratory conditions. The differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS HHT air-conduction audiograms agree well with audiograms obtained in the clinic. HHT is well suited to home telehealth applications and personal use.