Dataset Information

Development and validation of DeciBHAL-US: A novel microsimulation model of hearing loss across the lifespan in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hearing loss affects over 50% of people in the US across their lifespan and there is a lack of decision modeling frameworks to inform optimal hearing healthcare delivery. Our objective was to develop and validate a microsimulation model of hearing loss across the lifespan in the US.

Methods

We collaborated with the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss to outline model structure, identify input data sources, and calibrate/validate DeciBHAL-US (Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan). We populated the model with literature-based estimates and validated the conceptual model with key informants. We validated key model endpoints to the published literature, including: 1) natural history of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), 2) natural history of conductive hearing loss (CHL), and 3) the hearing loss cascade of care. We reported the coefficient of variance root mean square error (CV-RMSE), considering values ≤15% to indicate adequate fit.

Findings

For SNHL prevalence, the CV-RMSE for model projected male and female age-specific prevalence compared to sex-adjusted National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data was 4.9 and 5.7%, respectively. Incorporating literature-based age-related decline in SNHL, we validated mean four-frequency average hearing loss in the better ear (dB) among all persons to longitudinal data (CV-RMSE=11.3%). We validated the age-stratified prevalence of CHL to adjusted NHANES data (CV-RMSE=10.9%). We incorporated age- and severity-stratified time to first hearing aid (HA) use data and HA discontinuation data (adjusted for time-period of use) and validated to NHANES estimates on the prevalence of adult HA use (CV-RMSE=10.3%).

Interpretation

Our results indicate adequate model fit to internal and external validation data. Future incorporation of cost and severity-stratified utility data will allow for cost-effectiveness analysis of US hearing healthcare interventions across the lifespan. Further research might expand the modeling framework to international settings.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the National Institute on Aging (3UL1-TR002553-03S3 and F30 DC019846).

SUBMITTER: Borre ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8762067 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous simulation studies estimating the impacts of lung cancer screening have ignored the changes in smoking prevalence over time in the United States. Our primary rationale was to perform, to our knowledge, the first simulation study that estimates the health outcomes of lung cancer screening with explicit modeling of smoking trends for the whole US population. METHODS/FINDINGS:Utilizing a well-validated microsimulation model, we estimated the benefits and harms of an annual low-dose computed tomography screening scenario with a realistic screening adherence rate versus a no-screening scenario for the US population from 2016-2030. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria were applied: age 55-77 years at time of screening, history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking, and current smoker or former smoker with fewer than 15 years since quitting. In the screened population, cumulative mortality reduction was projected to reach 16.98% (95% CI 16.90%-17.07%). Cumulative mortality reduction was estimated to be 3.52% (95% CI 3.50%-3.53%) for the overall study population, with annual mortality reduction peaking at 4.38% (95% CI 4.36%-4.41%) in 2021 and falling to 3.53% (95% CI 3.50%-3.56%) by 2030. Lung cancer screening would save a projected 148,484 life-years (95% CI 147,429-149,540) across the total population through 2030. There were estimated to be 9,054 (95% CI 9,011-9,098) overdiagnosed cases among the 252,429 (95% CI 251,208-253,649) screen-detected lung cancer diagnoses, yielding an overdiagnosis rate of 3.59%. The limitations of our study are that we do not explicitly model race or socioeconomic status and our model was calibrated to data from studies performed in academic centers, both of which may impact the generalizability of our results. We also exclusively model the effects of the CMS guidelines for lung cancer screening and not any other screening strategies. CONCLUSIONS:The mortality reduction and life-years gained estimated by this study are lower than those of single birth cohort studies. Single cohort studies neglect the changing dynamics of smoking behavior across generations, whereas this study reflects the trend of decreasing smoking prevalence since the 1960s. Maximum benefit could be derived from lung cancer screening through 2021; in later years, mortality reduction due to screening will decline. If a comprehensive screening program is not implemented in the near future, the opportunity to achieve these benefits will have passed.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize current awareness, perceptions, and literacy surrounding hearing loss among the adult population in the United States.Study designNational cross-sectional survey study.SettingUnited States.PatientsAdults between 50 and 80 years of age in the United States.ResultsSurvey respondents included 1,250 adults between the ages of 50 and 80 years, including 500 who indicated at least moderate hearing loss and were using hearing aids and 750 who denied having hearing loss and were not using hearing aids.Only 9% of patients were able to correctly identify what constitutes a "normal" or "average" range for hearing. By comparison, a "normal" range of values for vision, blood pressure, and total cholesterol were identified correctly by 93%, 85%, and 52% of the 1,250 surveyed adults, respectively. When asked to rank the importance of addressing hearing loss within the context of 10 other common health conditions, hearing loss was ranked third to least important. When considering annual health maintenance, respondents indicated they were "very likely" to have an annual physical exam (72%), a cholesterol test (70%), an eye exam (66%), and bring their pet to a veterinarian (59%) over twice as frequently as having their hearing evaluated (27%).When evaluating awareness surrounding associations between hearing loss and other health and social issues, less than one-fourth indicated strong awareness about links between hearing loss and depression, employability and income, fall risk, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. While most patients acknowledge the potential impacts of hearing loss on safety, quality of life, and health, less than half believe that hearing loss is treatable and less than 20% believe that hearing loss is preventable.ConclusionDespite widespread literacy of what constitutes normal vision, blood pressure, and total cholesterol levels, respondents exhibit substantially poorer understanding of "normal" hearing levels. Most adults believe that few treatment options exist for the management of hearing loss. Underlying the uniformly limited literacy surrounding hearing loss and its treatment options is the adult population's lack of appreciation for the long-term health sequelae of untreated hearing loss.

Project description:BackgroundPoor diet is a leading risk factor for cardiometabolic disease (CMD) in the United States, but its economic costs are unknown. We sought to estimate the cost associated with suboptimal diet in the US.Methods and findingsA validated microsimulation model (Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model for Risk, Events, Detection, Interventions, Costs, and Trends [CVD PREDICT]) was used to estimate annual cardiovascular disease (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, angina, and stroke) and type 2 diabetes costs associated with suboptimal intake of 10 food groups (fruits, vegetables, nuts/seeds, whole grains, unprocessed red meats, processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, polyunsaturated fats, seafood omega-3 fats, sodium). A representative US population sample of individuals aged 35-85 years was created using weighted sampling from National Health And Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2009-2012 cycles. Estimates were stratified by cost type (acute, chronic, drug), sex, age, race, education, BMI, and health insurance. Annual diet-related CMD costs were $301/person (95% CI $287-$316). This translates to $50.4 billion in CMD costs (18.2% of total) for the whole population, of which 84.3% are attributed to acute care ($42.6 billion). The largest annual per capita costs are attributed to low consumption of nuts/seeds ($81; 95% CI $74-$86) and seafood omega-3 fats ($76; 95% CI $70-$83), and the lowest are attributed to high consumption of red meat ($3; 95% CI $2.8-$3.5) and polyunsaturated fats ($20; 95% CI $19-$22). Individual costs are highest for men ($380), those aged ≥65 years ($408), blacks ($320), the less educated ($392), and those with Medicare ($481) or dual-eligible ($536) insurance coverage. A limitation of our study is that dietary intake data were assessed from 24-hour dietary recall, which may not fully capture a diet over a person's life span and is subject to measurement errors.ConclusionsSuboptimal diet of 10 dietary factors accounts for 18.2% of all ischemic heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes costs in the US, highlighting that timely implementation of diet policies could address these health and economic burdens.

Project description:BackgroundFully assessing the mortality burden of the COVID-19 pandemic requires measuring years of life lost (YLLs) and accounting for quality-of-life differences.ObjectiveTo measure YLLs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost from the COVID-19 pandemic, by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity.DesignState-transition microsimulation model.Data sourcesHealth and Retirement Study, Panel Study of Income Dynamics, data on excess deaths from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and nursing home death counts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Target populationU.S. population aged 25 years and older.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveIndividual.InterventionCOVID-19 pandemic through 13 March 2021.Outcome measuresYLLs and QALYs lost per 10 000 persons in the population. The estimates account for the age, sex, and race/ethnicity of decedents, along with obesity, smoking behavior, lung disease, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, stroke, hypertension, dementia, and nursing home residence.Results of base-case analysisThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in 6.62 million QALYs lost (9.08 million YLLs) through 13 March 2021, with 3.6 million (54%) lost by those aged 25 to 64 years. The greatest toll was on Black and Hispanic communities, especially among men aged 65 years or older, who lost 1138 and 1371 QALYs, respectively, per 10 000 persons. Absent the pandemic, 38% of decedents would have had average or above-average life expectancies for their subgroup defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.Results of sensitivity analysisAccounting for uncertainty in risk factors for death from COVID-19 yielded similar results.LimitationEstimates may vary depending on assumptions about mortality and quality-of-life projections.ConclusionBeyond excess deaths alone, the COVID-19 pandemic imposed a greater life expectancy burden on persons aged 25 to 64 years, including those with average or above-average life expectancies, and a disproportionate burden on Black and Hispanic communities.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Aging.