Dataset Information

Use of Diagnostic Testing and Intervention for Sensorineural Hearing Loss in US Children From 2008 to 2018.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Early detection and intervention of pediatric hearing loss is critical for language development and academic achievement. However, variations in the diagnostic workup and management of pediatric sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) exist.

Objective

To identify patient and clinician factors that are associated with variation in practice on a national level.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study used the Optum claims database to identify 53 711 unique children with SNHL between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2018.

Main outcomes and measures

National use rates and mean costs for diagnostic modalities (electrocardiogram, cytomegalovirus testing, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and genetic testing) and interventions (speech-language pathology, billed hearing aid services, and cochlear implant surgery) were reported. The associations of age, sex, SNHL laterality, clinician type, race/ethnicity, and household income with diagnostic workup and intervention use were measured in multivariable analyses.

Results

Of 53 711 patients, 23 735 (44.2%) were girls, 2934 (5.5%) were Asian, 3797 (7.1%) were Black, 5626 (10.5%) were Hispanic, 33 441 (62.3%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 7.3 (5.3) years. Of all patients, 32 200 (60.0%) were seen by general otolaryngologists, while 7573 (14.10%) were seen by pediatric otolaryngologists. Diagnostic workup was received by 14 647 patients (27.3%), while 13 482 (25.1%) received intervention. Use of genetic testing increased (odds ratio, 1.22 per year; 95% CI, 1.20-1.24), whereas use of computed tomography decreased (odds ratio, 0.93 per year; 95% CI, 0.92-0.94) during the study period. After adjusting for relevant covariables, children who were seen by pediatric otolaryngologists and geneticists had the highest odds of receiving workup and intervention. Additionally, racial/ethnic and economic disparities were observed in the use of most modalities of diagnostic workup and intervention for pediatric SNHL.

Conclusions and relevance

This cross-sectional study identified factors associated with disparities in the diagnostic workup and intervention of pediatric SNHL, thus highlighting the need for increased education and standardization in the management of this common sensory disorder.

SUBMITTER: Qian ZJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7774052 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionVestibular assessment in children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is critical for early vestibular rehabilitation therapy to promote (motor) development or guide decision making towards cochlear implantation (timing of surgery and laterality). It can be challenging from a clinical viewpoint to decide which vestibular tests should be performed for a pediatric patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of several clinically available vestibular tests in children with SNHL, and to provide recommendations for the implementation of vestibular testing of children in clinical practice, to screen for vestibular hypofunction (VH).MethodsA two-center retrospective chart review was conducted. Eighty-six patients between the age of 0 and 18 years were included in this study with SNHL. Vestibular tests included video headimpulse test (VHIT), caloric test (performed at the age of four or higher), rotatory chair and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP). A combination of the clinical assessment and (combinations of) vestibular test outcomes determined the diagnosis. The diagnostic quality of tests and combination of tests was assessed by diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.ResultsVH was diagnosed in 44% of the patients. The VHIT and caloric test showed the highest diagnostic accuracy compared to the rotatory chair and cVEMP. All combinations of VHIT, caloric test and cVEMP showed improvement of the diagnostic accuracy compared to the respective tests when performed singularly. All combinations of tests showed a relatively similar diagnostic accuracy, with the VHIT combined with the caloric test scoring the highest. Adding a third test did not substantially improve the diagnostic accuracy.DiscussionVestibular testing is feasible and VH is highly prevalent in children with SNHL. A proposed diagnostic algorithm recommends starting with VHIT, followed by cVEMP for children under the age of four, and caloric testing for older children if VH is not confirmed with the first test. Performing a third test is redundant as the diagnostic accuracy does not improve substantially. However, challenges remain, including the lack of a gold standard and the subjective nature of the diagnosis, highlighting the need for standardized testing and increased understanding of VH in this population.

Project description:IntroductionTo compare inpatient treated patients with idiopathic (ISSNHL) and non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (NISSNHL) regarding frequency, hearing loss, treatment and outcome.MethodsAll 574 inpatient patients (51% male, median age: 60 years) with ISSNHL and NISSNHL, who were treated in federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012, were included retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.ResultsISSNHL was diagnosed in 490 patients (85%), NISSNHL in 84 patients (15%). 49% of these cases had hearing loss due to acute otitis media, 37% through varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease, 10% through Menière disease and 7% due to other reasons. Patients with ISSNHL and NISSNHL showed no difference between age, gender, side of hearing loss, presence of tinnitus or vertigo and their comorbidities. 45% of patients with ISSNHL and 62% with NISSNHL had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment (p < 0.001). The mean interval between onset of hearing loss to inpatient treatment was shorter in ISSNHL (7.7 days) than in NISSNHL (8.9 days; p = 0.02). The initial hearing loss of the three most affected frequencies in pure-tone average (3PTAmax) scaled 72.9 dBHL ± 31.3 dBHL in ISSNHL and 67.4 dBHL ± 30.5 dBHL in NISSNHL. In the case of acute otitis media, 3PTAmax (59.7 dBHL ± 24.6 dBHL) was lower than in the case of varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease (80.11 dBHL ± 34.19 dBHL; p = 0.015). Mean absolute hearing gain (Δ3PTAmaxabs) was 8.1 dB ± 18.8 dB in patients with ISSNHL, and not different in NISSNHL patients with 10.2 dB ± 17.6 dB. A Δ3PTAmaxabs ≥ 10 dB was reached in 34.3% of the patients with ISSNHL and to a significantly higher rate of 48.8% in NISSNHL patients (p = 0.011).ConclusionsISSNHL and NISSNHL show no relevant baseline differences. ISSNHL tends to have a higher initial hearing loss. NISSHNL shows a better outcome than ISSNHL.

Project description:ImportanceA genetic diagnosis can help elucidate the prognosis of hearing loss, thus significantly affecting management. Previous studies on diagnostic yield of hearing loss genetic tests have been based on largely homogenous study populations.ObjectivesTo examine the diagnostic yield of genetic testing in a diverse population of children, accounting for sociodemographic and patient characteristics, and assess whether these diagnoses are associated with subsequent changes in clinical management.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 2075 patients seen at the Children's Communications Clinic, of whom 517 completed hearing loss gene panel testing between January 1, 2015, and November 1, 2021, at the University of California, San Francisco Benioff Children's Hospital system. From those 517 patients, 426 children with at least 2 audiograms were identified and analyzed. Data were gathered from November 2021 to January 2022 and analyzed from January to February 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe measures of interest were sociodemographic characteristics (age at testing, gender, race and ethnicity, primary language, and insurance type), hearing loss characteristics, and medical variables. The outcome was genetic testing results. Variables were compared with univariate and multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf the 2075 patients seen at the Children's Communications Clinic, 517 (median [range] age, 8 [0-31] years; 264 [51.1%] male; 351 [67.9%] from an underrepresented minority [URM] group) underwent a hearing loss panel genetic test between January 1, 2015, and November 1, 2021. Among those 517 patients, 426 children (median [range] age, 8 [0-18] years; 221 [51.9%] male; 304 [71.4%] from an URM group) with 2 or more audiograms were included in a subsequent analysis. On multivariable logistic regression, age at testing (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.97), URM group status (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.66), comorbidities (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.53), late-identified hearing loss (passed newborn hearing screen; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.86), and unilateral hearing loss (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.005-0.33) were the only factors associated with genetic diagnosis. No association was found between genetic diagnosis yield and other sociodemographic variables or hearing loss characteristics. Patients in URM and non-URM groups had statistically similar clinical features. A total of 32 of 109 children (29.4%) who received a genetic diagnosis received diagnoses that significantly affected prognosis because of identification of syndromic or progressive sensorineural hearing loss or auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder relating to otoferlin.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study's findings suggest that genetic testing may be broadly useful in improving clinical management of children with hearing loss. More research is warranted to discover and characterize diagnostic genes for those who have been historically underrepresented in research and medicine.