Vernon D. Larson

An individualized, sensitive frequency range for early detection of ototoxicity

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to identify auditory frequencies at which serial threshold testing would provide the greatest sensitivity for early detection of ototoxicity. The overall objective is to develop a more time-efficient ototoxicity monitoring protocol. DESIGN Threshold data were analyzed from 370 hospitalized patients treated with aminoglycoside antibiotics (AMGs) or cisplatin (CDDP) who received serial auditory monitoring before, during, and after treatment at conventional (0.25 to 8 kHz) and high (9 to 20 kHz) frequencies. RESULTS For patients showing hearing changes due to ototoxicity, a frequency range was identified for its apparent high sensitivity to initial ototoxicity. This sensitive range is identified according to an individuals hearing threshold configuration, and is, therefore, unique for each patient. The range consists of five frequencies, generally separated by 1/6 octave, e.g., 8, 9, 10, 11.2, and 12.5 kHz. To determine frequencies and combinations of frequencies that were most often involved in ototoxicity detection, threshold data in the sensitive range were analyzed in detail. This analysis suggests that patients receiving treatment with AMG or CDDP can be monitored for hearing thresholds at only five frequencies, resulting in an 84% detection rate for AMG and 94% for CDDP compared with monitoring at all conventional and high frequencies. CONCLUSIONS This comprehensive analysis supports earlier observations that a sensitive, limited frequency range exists in which serial threshold monitoring will provide early warning of ototoxicity before effects in the speech frequency range. This finding is now being evaluated in a prospective investigation.

High-frequency audiometric monitoring strategies for early detection of ototoxicity

Therapeutic drugs such as the aminoglycoside antibiotics (AMG) and the chemotherapy agent cisplatin (CDDP) are known to cause irreversible hearing loss, typically affecting highest frequency hearing first with progression of loss to the lower frequency regions. Conventional (0.25-8 kHz) and high-frequency (9-20 kHz) serial hearing threshold monitoring was done in 123 hospitalized patients (222 ears) administered AMG or CDDP. Of ears showing a decrease in sensitivity corresponding with treatment, 62.5% demonstrated initial hearing loss solely in the high-frequency range, 13.5% first showed loss only in the conventional-frequency range, and 24.0% showed loss in both frequency ranges concurrently. Thus, if only high frequencies had been monitored, early change in auditory sensitivity would have been detected in 86.5% of these patients. Further analysis revealed a range of five frequencies, specific to each individuals hearing threshold configuration, in which initial ototoxicity appeared most likely to be detected. Testing only these five frequencies would have identified 89.2% of ears that showed change. The results of this study confirm the need to serially monitor auditory thresholds, especially in the high-frequency range, of patients receiving ototoxic drugs. A shortened five-frequency monitoring protocol is presented and suggested for use with patients unable to tolerate lengthy audiometric testing procedures.

Subjective measures of Hearing Aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial

Objective Subjective measures of performance were assessed on three different hearing aid circuits as part of a large clinical trial. These measurements included the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance and a subjective ranking of individual preference. Design A multi-center, double-masked clinical trial of hearing aids was conducted at eight VA Medical Centers. Three hearing aid circuits, a linear peak-clipper, a linear compression limiter and a wide dynamic range compressor, were investigated. The experimental design was a three-period, three-treatment crossover design. Subjects (N = 360) were stratified by site and randomized to one of six sequences for the hearing aid circuits. All fittings were binaural and involved a 3-mo trial with each of the three circuits. All subjective measures were administered for unaided and aided conditions at the end of each trial period. Results While all of the circuits resulted in improved scores on the aided versus the unaided PHAP, there were few conditions in which one circuit outperformed the others. An exception was the aversiveness of sound subscale where the peak clipper frequently scored worse than either the compression limiter or the wide dynamic range compressor. In the subjective ranking scale the compression limiter received more first place rankings than the other two circuits, especially for one subgroup of patients with moderate flat hearing loss. Conclusions All circuits were perceived as beneficial by these subjects in most situations. The peak clipper scored worse on aversiveness of sound than did the other two circuits for most subjects, while the compression limiter seemed to have a slight advantage in subjective rankings. Most subjects perceived considerable aided benefit in situations involving background noise and reverberation, situations where hearing aid benefit is often questioned.

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.

Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA Clinical Trial.

Objective As part of a large clinical trial that compared three hearing aid circuits using several evaluation methods, judgments about quality of listening experiences were sought from all subjects. Three dimensions were examined: loudness, noise interference and overall liking (quality). Design Eight Audiology units in VA Medical Centers participated. Three hearing aid circuits were compared: linear peak clipper, compression limiter, and wide dynamic range compressor. The experimental design was a three-period, three-treatment crossover design. Baseline measures were made using a battery of tests in unaided conditions. Subjects (N = 360) were then stratified by participating site and randomized to one of six sequences of the three hearing aid circuits. Each circuit was fit binaurally and all subjects used each of the three circuits for 3 mo. All outcome measures were administered in unaided and aided conditions after each 3-mo period. The study used a double-blind strategy, i.e., neither the audiologist giving the tests nor the subject knew which circuit was being used. A different audiologist programmed the devices. Results For loudness judgments, soft and loud presentations of speech in quiet and in babble competition were judged more comfortable via the wide dynamic range circuit. The noise interference tasks and overall liking of the listening experience showed few significant differences across circuits. All circuits made the listening experience more comfortably loud for soft and conversation-level speech. Conclusions Differences across circuits in terms of the overall quality of the listening experience and how noise interference was rated were small. Only isolated conditions, usually favoring the WDRC circuit, reached significance levels. The loudness dimension results were clearer. The WDRC circuit made sounds at either the loud or soft extreme more comfortable. When subjects were grouped by amount and configuration of hearing loss, the advantages for the WDRC and to a lesser extent the linear compression-limited circuit were clearest among subjects with mild hearing losses with a >10 dB/octave high-frequency drop, and those with moderate, relatively flat hearing losses.