Dataset Information

Hearing loss in Norwegian adults with achondroplasia

ABSTRACT:

Background

Achondroplasia is the most common form of disproportionate skeletal dysplasia. The condition is caused by a mutation in the FGFR3 gene, affecting endochondral bone growth, including the craniofacial anatomy. Recurrent otitis media infections, chronic middle ear effusion, and hearing loss are common in children with achondroplasia, but few studies have investigated hearing loss in adults with this condition.

Objectives

This population-based study investigated the prevalence, severity, and type of hearing loss in Norwegian adults with achondroplasia.

Methods

We collected data on 45 adults with genetically confirmed achondroplasia: 23 men and 22 women, aged 16–70 years. All participants underwent a comprehensive audiologic assessment, including medical history, pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, and impedance audiometry. According to the Global Burden of Disease classification, pure-tone average ≥ 20 decibel hearing level (dB HL) was considered clinically significant hearing loss.

Results

Insertion of ventilation tubes had been performed in 44% (20/45) of the participants, 49% (22/45) had a history of adenoidectomy, while 20% (9/45) used hearing aids. Hearing loss in at least one ear was found in 53% (24/45) of the participants; in 57% (13/23) of the men and 50% (11/22) of the women. In the youngest age group (age 16–44 years), 50% (14/28) had hearing loss, although predominantly mild (20–34 dB HL). An abnormal tympanometry (Type B or C) was found in 71% (32/45) of the participants. The majority (15/24) had conductive hearing loss, or a combination of conductive and sensorineural hearing loss (8/24).

Conclusions

Adults with achondroplasia are at increased risk of early hearing loss. Our findings underline the importance of a regular hearing assessment being part of standard care in achondroplasia, including adolescents and young adults. In adult patients diagnosed with hearing loss, an evaluation by an otolaryngologist should be considered, and the need for hearing aids, assistive listening devices, and workplace and educational accommodations should be discussed. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03780153.

SUBMITTER: Fredwall S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8570016 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSymptomatic spinal stenosis (SSS) is a well-known medical complication in achondroplasia. The reported prevalence of SSS is 10 to 30%, an estimate based on small studies or selected populations. No population-based studies exist currently. Furthermore, the relationship between SSS and physical functioning has not been investigated in detail. The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence of SSS in Norwegian adults with achondroplasia, and to explore the impact of SSS on physical functioning.MethodsThis was a population-based study on Norwegian community-dwelling adults with genetically confirmed achondroplasia. Prevalence of SSS was defined by clinical symptoms, and confirmed by imaging or surgical reports. Physical functioning was assessed by walking capacity (6-min walk test), hand strength (Grippit), and activities of daily living (the Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ). Pain was assessed by pain site locations and intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS).ResultsIn total, 50 participants were included (27 males, 23 females). Median age was 41 years (range 16 to 87 years), 34 (68%) had SSS. The estimated median age at first symptom onset was 33 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 29 to 43 years), range 10 to 67 years. The majority had multiple spinal levels affected. The walking distance was 110 m shorter in the SSS group (95% CI - 172 to - 40 m) as compared with the non-SSS group (p < 0.01). There was no considerable difference in hand strength between the two groups. Mean HAQ scores (0-3) for walking and hygiene were significantly higher in the SSS group, reflecting more activity limitations. Mean differences were 0.9 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.4, p < 0.01) and 0.6 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.0, p < 0.01). Pain intensity (NRS 0-10) was also significantly higher in the SSS group with a mean difference of 3.2 (95% CI 0.6 to 5.6, p = 0.02).ConclusionsSSS was highly prevalent in Norwegian adults with achondroplasia, with symptom onset at young age, and multiple spinal levels affected. The presence of SSS was associated with reduced walking distance, activity limitations, and more pain. The findings underline the importance of thorough assessment and monitoring of SSS in achondroplasia, including a formal assessment of physical functioning.

Project description:BackgroundThe main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.Search methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.Main resultsWe included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To measure 18-month healthcare cost difference attributable to hearing loss (HL) in older adults. DESIGN:Matched cohort. SETTING:Retrospective analysis of administrative healthcare bills of insured older Americans. PARTICIPANTS:Older U.S. adults with health insurance in 3 cohorts matched based on HL diagnosis using propensity score methods (N=904,750). MEASUREMENTS:Comparison groups were defined as those with and without HL diagnosis using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis codes from billing records. Outcomes measured include 18-month total healthcare payments and healthcare payments broken down according to payment type (inpatient, outpatient, prescription, hearing services). Three comparison cohorts were examined for these outcomes: individuals covered by Medicare plus supplemental private insurance (Cohort 1, n=782,216), those covered only under Medicare (Cohort 2, n=105,296), and those within the Medicare sample that were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage (Subcohort 3, n=17,238). The quality of the propensity score match was examined using standardized differences in means or proportions between all matched covariates, and cost outcomes were analyzed using multiple generalized linear regression models. RESULTS:Fully adjusted models showed significantly higher 18-month healthcare payments for individuals with a diagnosis of HL without indication of use of hearing services than in those without a HL diagnosis in the 3 samples (payment differences: $3,587 Cohort 1, $3,779 Cohort 2, $4,657 Subcohort 3; all p<.001). Payment differences were also found between individuals with HL and indications of hearing services and those without HL. CONCLUSION:We observed more than 20% higher total healthcare payments over 18 months for a group of insured individuals with HL regardless of insurance type or hearing services use, indicating that negative health-related effects of HL may increase healthcare use unrelated to HL. Thus, clinical care to ameliorate HL may improve overall health.

Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review to address two research questions: (Q1) Does hearing loss have an effect on fatigue? (Q2) Does hearing device fitting have an effect on fatigue? It was hypothesized that hearing loss would increase fatigue (H1), and hearing device fitting would reduce fatigue (H2).DesignSystematic searches were undertaken of five bibliographic databases: Embase, MedLine, Web of Science, Psychinfo, and the Cochrane Library. English language peer-reviewed research articles were included from inception until present. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design strategy.ResultsInitial searches for both research questions produced 1,227 unique articles, after removal of duplicates. After screening, the full text of 61 studies was checked, resulting in 12 articles with content relevant to the research questions. The reference lists of these studies were examined, and a final updated search was conducted on October 16, 2019. This resulted in a final total of 20 studies being selected for the review. For each study, the information relating to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design criteria and the statistical outcomes relating to both questions (Q1 and Q2) were extracted. Evidence relating to Q1 was provided by 15 studies, reporting 24 findings. Evidence relating to Q2 was provided by six studies, reporting eight findings. One study provided evidence for both. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines, the quality of evidence on both research questions was deemed to be "very low." It was impossible to perform a meta-analysis of the results due to a lack of homogeneity.ConclusionsAs the studies were too heterogeneous to support a meta-analysis, it was not possible to provide statistically significant evidence to support the hypotheses that hearing loss results in increased fatigue (H1) or that hearing device fitting results in decreased fatigue (H2). Despite this, the comparative volume of positive results and the lack of any negative findings are promising for future research (particularly in respect of Q1). There was a very small number of studies deemed eligible for the review, and there was large variability between studies in terms of population, and quantification of hearing loss and fatigue. The review highlights the need for consistency when measuring fatigue, particularly when using self-report questionnaires, where the majority of the current evidence was generated.

Project description:ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to identify the effects of auditory deprivation (age-related hearing loss) and auditory stimulation (history of hearing aid use) on the neural registration of sound across two stimulus presentation conditions: (1) equal sound pressure level and (2) equal sensation level.DesignWe used a between-groups design, involving three groups of 14 older adults (n = 42; 62 to 84 years): (1) clinically defined normal hearing (≤25 dB from 250 to 8000 Hz, bilaterally), (2) bilateral mild-moderate/moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss who have never used hearing aids, and (3) bilateral mild-moderate/moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss who have worn bilateral hearing aids for at least the past 2 years.ResultsThere were significant delays in the auditory P1-N1-P2 complex in older adults with hearing loss compared with their normal hearing peers when using equal sound pressure levels for all participants. However, when the degree and configuration of hearing loss were accounted for through the presentation of equal sensation level stimuli, no latency delays were observed. These results suggest that stimulus audibility modulates P1-N1-P2 morphology and should be controlled for when defining deprivation and stimulus-related neuroplasticity in people with hearing loss. Moreover, a history of auditory stimulation, in the form of hearing aid use, does not appreciably alter the neural registration of unaided auditory evoked brain activity when quantified by the P1-N1-P2.ConclusionsWhen comparing auditory cortical responses in older adults with and without hearing loss, stimulus audibility, and not hearing loss-related neurophysiological changes, results in delayed response latency for those with age-related hearing loss. Future studies should carefully consider stimulus presentation levels when drawing conclusions about deprivation- and stimulation-related neuroplasticity. Additionally, auditory stimulation, in the form of a history of hearing aid use, does not significantly affect the neural registration of sound when quantified using the P1-N1-P2-evoked response.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough hearing loss is common in the population worldwide, the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use is not known.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use in the adult French population.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the CONSTANCES cohort, a representative sample of the French population. Volunteers aged 18 to 75 years were recruited at 21 preventive health centers between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. The present study included participants with audiometric data.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were prevalence of hearing loss and disabling hearing loss overall and by sex and age group and prevalence of self-reported hearing aid use among those with disabling hearing loss. Hearing loss was defined as a pure-tone average (PTA) in the better ear of 20 dB or higher, and disabling hearing loss was defined as a PTA in the better ear of 35 dB or higher.ResultsOf 200 870 participants in the CONSTANCES study, 186 460 had full audiometric data and were included in this study (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [13.5] years); 100 330 (53.8%) were female, and 86 130 (46.2%) were male. Of these participants, 24.8% (95% CI, 24.6%-25.0%) had hearing loss and 4.3% (95% CI, 4.2%-4.4%) had disabling hearing loss. The prevalence rates of hearing loss increased from 3.4% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.9%) at age 18 to 25 years to 73.3% (95% CI, 69.5%-77.2%) at age 71 to 75 years among men and from 4.4% (95% CI, 3.9%-5.0%) at age 18 to 25 years to 64.1% (95% CI, 59.7%-68.4%) at age 71 to 75 years among women. The prevalence of disabling hearing loss increased from 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.4%) among participants aged 18 to 25 years to 23.3% (95% CI, 20.7%-26.0%) among participants aged 71 to 75 years. Among the 8050 participants with disabling hearing loss, 36.8% (95% CI, 35.8%-37.9%) reported using hearing aids, including 56.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-74.4%) aged 18 to 25 years and 32.9% (95% CI, 26.8%-39.2%) aged 71 to 75 years.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, hearing loss was prevalent in France, and the prevalence of hearing loss increased with age among both men and women. Hearing aids were underused, particularly among older individuals. These findings suggest that hearing loss prevention and screening in the French population are needed.