Impact of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of newborn hearing loss.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unexpected disruptions in patient care, including adherence to the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) 1-3-6 guidelines. These guidelines mandate newborn hearing screening (NHS) by 1 month of age, diagnosis of hearing loss (HL) by 3 months, and referral to Early Intervention by 6 months. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on EHDI benchmarks in a major US city to help clinicians address current needs and prepare for future disruptive events. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed for all patients who did not pass NHS at two tertiary care centers between March 2018 and March 2022. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on the periods of time before, during, and after the COVID-19 Massachusetts State of Emergency (SOE). Demographics, medical history, NHS results, Auditory Brainstem Response results, and hearing aid (HA) intervention data were collected. Two-sampled independent t-tests and analysis of variance were used to compute rate and time outcomes. RESULTS: 30,773 newborns underwent NHS and 678 failed NHS. There was no difference in 1-month benchmark NHS rates, increased 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis rate post-SOE COVID (91.7%; p = 0.002), and increased 6-month benchmark HA intervention rate post-SOE COVID compared to pre-COVID (88.9% vs. 44.4%; p = 0.027). Mean time to NHS was lower during SOE COVID compared to pre-COVID (1.9 days vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.038) and mean time to HL diagnosis was higher during SOE COVID (47.5 days; p < 0.001). Lost to follow-up (LTF) rate at HL diagnosis decreased post-SOE (4.8%; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: No differences in EHDI 1-3-6 benchmark rates between pre-COVID and SOE COVID patients were observed. However, increased 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis and 6-month benchmark HA intervention rates and a decreased LTF rate at 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis were observed post-SOE COVID.

Hearing screening test in neonates born to COVID-19-positive mothers.

SARS-CoV-2, the responsible virus for the COVID-19 pandemic, has demonstrated neurotropic properties indicated by cases presenting with auditory and vestibular system insults. The expression of ACE-2 receptors in the placenta and the detection of IgM antibodies against the virus in the fetuses of pregnant women suffering from COVID-19 render vertical transmission of the infection to the fetus possible. Thus, our study aims to examine whether, similar to other viruses like CMV, SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for congenital hearing loss. This is a retrospective study in a regional pediatric hospital. The medical records of newborns (n = 111) born by mothers positive for COVID-19 during pregnancy who underwent screening hearing tests with Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAE) and Automatic Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR) from February 2020 to June 2022 were reviewed. Neonates with additional aggravating factors for congenital hearing loss were excluded from the study. For the study period, nine mothers were found positive during the first trimester, twenty mothers in the second trimester, and eighty-three mothers in the third trimester. TEOAEs test and AABR test scored PASS bilaterally in all neonates tested. CONCLUSION: Infection with COVID-19 during pregnancy was not a risk factor for hearing loss, similar to other studies. WHAT IS KNOWN: • The pathogenetic mechanism of the viral-induced impairment of the organ of Corti includes direct damage to the hair cells and indirect damage due to the induction of the innate inflammatory response. • Early data suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 virus also has neurotropic properties with manifestations from the sensory epithelia. WHAT IS NEW: • Although the intrauterine infection remains controversial, the expression of the ACE-2 receptor on the placenta and the detection of IgM antibodies, as well as the covid-19 genome in fetuses, make the vertical transmission tenable. • In our study, the newborn hearing screening results indicate that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not a risk factor for hearing loss.

Is intrauterine exposure to COVID-19 infection a risk factor for infant hearing loss?

PURPOSE: To determine whether exposure to intrauterine COVID-19 infection causes congenital or late-onset hearing loss in infants. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The hearing screening results of infants born in a tertiary hospital between March 2020 and April 2022 with and without a history of intrauterine exposure to COVID-19 infection (36 infants each) were retrospectively analyzed within one month after birth in all infants and additionally at six months after intrauterine COVID-19 infection exposure in the study group. The automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) test was used for the hearing evaluation. RESULTS: The polymerase chain reaction test was negative in study group exposed to intrauterine COVID-19 infection. The number of infants admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and the length of ICU stay were significantly higher in this group (p < 0.01). Six infants (16.6 %) in the study group failed the first AABR test bilaterally, but five of these infants passed the second AABR test. A bilateral severe sensorineural hearing loss was detected in one infant (2.77 %). All the infants in the study group underwent the AABR test again at six months, and all infants, except this infant, passed the test. In the control group, five infants (13.88 %) failed the first AABR test bilaterally, but they all passed the second test. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to COVID-19 infection in the intrauterine period does not cause congenital or late-onset hearing loss (within six months) in infants; therefore, gestational COVID-19 infection is not a risk factor for infant hearing loss.

Is Gestational COVID-19 a Risk Factor for Congenital Hearing Loss?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether COVID-19 during pregnancy is a risk factor for congenital hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Hearing screening test results of 60,223 newborns between March 2020 and May 2021 were screened using the national database. Newborn babies of 570 pregnant women with positive COVID-19 PCR test during pregnancy who met the study criteria were included in the gestational COVID-19 group, and 570 healthy newborns born in the same period were included in the control group. INTERVENTION: Diagnostic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Results of up to three automatic auditory brainstem response tests in the first 30 days of life were used for newborn hearing screening. RESULTS: When the gestational COVID-19 and control groups were compared in terms of demographic data, there was no statistically significant difference for any of the variables (maternal age, gestational age, birth weight, neonate gender, mode of delivery, p > 0.05 for all variables). Of the mothers in the gestational COVID-19 group, 62 (10.9%) had COVID-19 in the first trimester, 181 (31.8%) in the second trimester, and 327 (57.3%) in the third trimester. When the first and second test results of newborn hearing screening were compared between the groups, the number of babies with hearing loss was higher in the gestational COVID-19 group than in the control group (p = 0.025; odds ratio, 1.357; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-1.774; p = 0.006; odds ratio, 4.924; 95% confidence interval, 1.410-17.193, respectively). For the third test results, hearing loss was detected in only one baby in both groups (p = 0.284). When the first, second, and third test results for newborn hearing screening were compared according to the trimesters when COVID-19 positivity was identified, the difference between trimesters was not found to be statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study in the literature of the impact of COVID-19 on newborn hearing. The findings in the study suggest that gestational COVID-19 is not a risk factor for permanent congenital hearing loss. However, because the risk of detecting hearing loss is high in the first 15 days, we emphasize the importance of the third screening test.

Adapting Audiology Procedures During the Pandemic: Validity and Efficacy of Testing Outside a Sound Booth.

PURPOSE: This investigation aims to provide outcomes from a clinical perspective on the validity and efficacy of a wireless automated audiometer system that could be used in multiple settings when a sound booth is not accessible. Testing was conducted in a clinical setting under modified protocols meeting safety precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Four doctoral students in audiology served as examiners. Participants were 69 adults between the ages of 20 and 69 years, with normal hearing (≤ 25 dB HL; n = 110 ears) or hearing loss (> 25 dB HL; n = 25 ears). Two versions of a pure-tone air-conduction threshold test following a modified Hughson-Westlake approach were performed and compared at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz (a) in a sound-treated test booth using standard manual audiometry and (b) in a quiet, nonsound-treated clinical room (sound booth free) using automated KUDUwave audiometry. Participants were asked to complete a five-item feedback questionnaire, and examiners were interviewed to report on their experience. RESULTS: Clinical validity to within ±10 dB of standard audiometry was demonstrated for 94.5% of the total thresholds (n = 937) measured with the sound booth-free approach. Less accuracy (73.3%) was observed using a ±5 dB comparison. When comparing the mean thresholds, there were significant differences (p < .01) between the mean thresholds at most frequencies, with mean sound booth thresholds being higher than the sound booth-free mean thresholds. A strong threshold correlation (.91-.98) was found between the methods across frequencies. Participant and examiner feedback supported the efficacy of the sound booth-free technology. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support sound booth-free, automated software-controlled audiometry with active noise monitoring as a valid and efficient procedure for pure-tone hearing threshold assessment. This method offers an effective alternative when circumstances require more transportable hearing assessment technology or do not allow for standard manual audiometry in a sound booth.

Did Changes to Adult Hearing Aid Pathways Due to COVID-19 Affect Patient Outcomes? A Service Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether changes to adult hearing aid provision during COVID-19 affected patient outcomes or service efficiency. DESIGN: A service evaluation compared three cohorts: patients who had hearing aid provision prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (the conventional pathway); patients who had hearing aid provision during the initial national lockdown (remote fittings); and patients who had hearing aid provision during the gradual reopening phase (a blended service with both face-to-face and remote service provision). Outcomes measured the effectiveness and efficiency of the service, using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit/Difference Profiles (GHABP/DP) and number of follow-up appointments required. Results were assessed using descriptive statistics and error bars, separately for new and existing users. SAMPLE: This study included 240 hearing aid users. RESULTS: Remote fittings adversely impacted the effectiveness of provision for new hearing aid users with a reduction in all GHABP domains. While new users' benefit was equally as good for blended and conventional service provision, blended provision was less efficient and required more follow-up visits. For existing hearing aid users, no differences were seen in GHADP outcomes of different pathways and remote fittings increased service efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Remote hearing aid fittings are less effective for new users than hearing aids fitted using standard face-to-face service provision or service provision using a blended model of remote and face-to-face care. Current pathways using a blended model of care are less efficient but equally effective for new hearing aid users compared with provision prior to COVID-19 and result in equivalent patient outcomes in terms of benefit. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21067585.

Cochleovestibular findings linked to COVID-19: A scoping review for clinical care planning in South Africa.

BACKGROUND:  On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared an outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to be a global health emergency. Research has focused on the impact and response to life-threatening symptoms of COVID-19 across the lifespan; however, there is a need to investigate the effects of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system, as viral infections are known to impact this system. This is particularly important for contexts where resources are limited and prioritisation of resources requires strong risk versus benefit evaluations. OBJECTIVE:  Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to investigate published evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system across the lifespan in order to allow for strategic clinical care planning in South Africa, where capacity versus demand challenges exist. METHODS:  Electronic bibliographic databases such as CINAHL, EBSCOHost, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect were searched for peer-reviewed publications between January 2020 and January 2022. These had to be published in English and related to the impact of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system, where the question was: 'what evidence has been published on the impact of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system?' Review selection and characterisation was performed by the researcher with an independent review by a colleague using pretested forms. RESULTS:  Of a total of 24 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the current scoping review revealed limited conclusive published evidence linking COVID-19 to permanent hearing function symptoms. Current evidence supports the possibility of COVID-19, similar to other viral infections in adults, impacting the cochleovestibular system and causing tinnitus, vertigo and sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), with the symptoms being generally temporary and resolving either partially or completely following therapy with steroids, with very inconclusive findings in the paediatric population. CONCLUSION:  These findings raise global implications for properly designed studies, which include longitudinal follow-up of cases across the lifespan, examining this link with some focus on establishing the pathophysiologic mechanisms at play as well. In the meanwhile, current findings raise the value of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for all patients presenting with unexplained cochleovestibular symptoms during the pandemic, as these may be the only presenting symptoms indicating COVID-19, thus requiring careful treatment and management.

Impact of Hearing Loss on Communication During Remote Health Care Encounters.

Introduction: Satisfaction with telemedicine is generally high; however, it can lead to communication problems for people with hearing loss (HL), especially when encounters are conducted by telephone, because of the inability to see the face and lips on which many people with HL rely. Despite acknowledgement that HL might affect telemedicine outcomes, no studies have directly examined this. The primary aims of this study were to determine whether and how HL impacts patient satisfaction and willingness to use telemedicine. Methods: Opinions about telemedicine were assessed in a survey of 383 members of the general public. Data regarding reported hearing ability, use of hearing assistive technology, and preferred form of communication (oral/aural vs. sign language) were also collected; people with HL were intentionally oversampled. Survey items included closed set and open-ended responses. Results: People with HL declined the offer of telemedicine appointments, rated telemedicine outcomes significantly less positively, and had stronger preferences for in person care than did people without HL. Explanations provided for this were directly associated with hearing-related difficulties or the indirect consequences of those difficulties. HL resulted in concerns about communication during the appointment, a lack of privacy when an intermediary helped with communication during the appointment, worries that critical information has been misheard/missed, and anxiety/stress. Conclusions: The needs of people with HL during telemedicine encounters must be addressed to ensure equitable access. Health care providers should take responsibility to communicate clearly with people with HL and individuals with HL should be willing to advocate for their needs and use special access tools during telemedicine appointments.

Chilean spanish transcultural adaptation of CAP-II and SIR scales in an online format for parents of children with hearing aids or cochlear implants / Adaptación transcultural al español chileno de las escalas CAP-II y SIR en formato online para padres de niños(as) con audífonos o implantes cocleares

La adquisición de lengua oral representa un desafío para niñas/os sordas/os o con pérdida auditiva (NSPA) que utilizan audífonos o implante coclear (CI). Tomar decisiones a tiempo durante el tratamiento con dispositivos es esencial y requiere de evaluaciones adecuadas. Dos instrumentos usados en la toma de decisiones son las escalas "Categories of Auditory Performance Index II" (CAP-II) y "Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale" (SIR). Estas escalas han mostrado ser útiles para la evaluación continua del desarrollo de habilidades auditivas y de la lengua oral en variados idiomas, pero estas no están disponibles para el español chileno. El objetivo de este estudio es crear traducciones en español chileno de las escalas CAP-II y SIR, las que puedan ser usadas como auto-reporte online por padres y cuidadores con el fin de asistir a profesionales en el monitoreo del progreso de niños/as NSPA, considerando las restricciones impuestas por el COVID-19. El método usado en el proceso comienza con la traducción de una propuesta de auto-reporte de las versiones originales en inglés de las escalas CAP-II y SIR. Finalmente, las versiones en español chileno fueron testeadas en 107 padres-cuidadores de niñas/os NSPA con CI. Los resultados sugieren que estos instrumentos serían adecuados para su uso en el contexto chileno.

Spoken language acquisition is challenging for very young deaf or hard-of-hearing children (DHH) who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants (CI). Timely decision-making for treatment is essential for these children and requires suitable assessments. Two such assessments are the Categories of Auditory Performance Index II (CAP-II) and the Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale (SIR). These have been shown to be helpful for the ongoing evaluation of developing speech perception and spoken language skills in various languages, but they are not available in Chilean Spanish. This study aimed to create a Chilean Spanish translation of the CAP-II and SIR, appropriate for online self-administration by parents-caregivers in Chile, to assist professionals in monitoring DHH children's progress, considering the COVID-19 restrictions. The methods used in the process started with translating a self-report proposal from the original English versions of the CAP-II and SIR scales. Finally, the Chilean Spanish versions were tested in 107 Chilean parents-caregivers of DHH children with CIs. The results suggest these instruments are suitable for use in a Chilean context.

Middle ear status - structure, function and pathology: A scoping review on middle ear status of COVID-19 positive patients.

BACKGROUND:  The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the latest public health emergency that has presented challenges globally. Limited evidence exists on the association between COVID-19 and middle ear pathologies, regardless of the respiratory nature of some of the core symptoms. OBJECTIVE:  This scoping review aimed at exploring evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on middle ear functioning as part of symptom mapping and preventive planning for ear and hearing care. METHOD:  Electronic bibliographic databases, including Medline, ProQuest, PubMed, Science Direct, ERIC and Scopus, were searched to identify peer reviewed publications, published in English, between December 2019 and January 2022, related to the effects of COVID-19 on middle ear functioning. The keywords used as MeSH terms included 'middle ear pathology', 'middle ear disorder', 'otitis media', 'hearing loss', 'hearing impairment', 'audiology' and 'COVID-19' or 'coronavirus'. RESULTS:  From eight studies that met the inclusion criteria, the findings revealed that middle ear pathologies occur in this population, with the occurrence ranging from 1.15% to 75%. Tympanic membrane structural changes, otitis media and conductive hearing loss (CHL) were commonly reported. The current findings must be interpreted with caution given that most of the studies reviewed had extremely small sample sizes or were case studies or series, thus limiting generalisability. CONCLUSION:  The findings highlight the value of strategic research planning to collate data during pandemics, ensuring that future studies use appropriate and well-designed methodologies. Trends and patterns of middle ear pathologies in this population must also be established to determine the need for periodic monitoring.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Universal Newborn Hearing Screening.

OBJECTIVES: To report the direct and indirect impact of coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the Universal Newborn Hearing Screening program of our institution (Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Sassari). DESIGN: Monocentric retrospective study whose target population included all the newborns born in or referred to our hospital in 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: There is no statistically significant difference in time to retest or loss to follow-up rate between the 2 years considered (2019 to 2020). Referral rate is not higher for newborns born to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction positive mothers. CONCLUSIONS: In relation to the analyzed variables, coronavirus disease 2019 seems to have a limited impact on our screening program. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 did not behave as an audiological risk factor in our series.

Harmonicity aids hearing in noise.

Hearing in noise is a core problem in audition, and a challenge for hearing-impaired listeners, yet the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. We explored whether harmonic frequency relations, a signature property of many communication sounds, aid hearing in noise for normal hearing listeners. We measured detection thresholds in noise for tones and speech synthesized to have harmonic or inharmonic spectra. Harmonic signals were consistently easier to detect than otherwise identical inharmonic signals. Harmonicity also improved discrimination of sounds in noise. The largest benefits were observed for two-note up-down "pitch" discrimination and melodic contour discrimination, both of which could be performed equally well with harmonic and inharmonic tones in quiet, but which showed large harmonic advantages in noise. The results show that harmonicity facilitates hearing in noise, plausibly by providing a noise-robust pitch cue that aids detection and discrimination.

Auditory evaluation of infants born to COVID19 positive mothers.

COVID-19 infection can cause a wide spectrum of symptoms. The audio-vestibular system can also be involved, but there is still debate about this so findings need to be considered carefully. Furthermore, mother to fetus intrauterine transmission of COVID-19 infection in pregnant women is controversial. Few studies are available about the audio-vestibular symptomatology of newborns with intrauterine COVID19 exposure. OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the possible correlation between the COVID19 gestational infection and hearing impairment onset in newborns. The involvement of hearing in COVID19 is verified so the timing and methodology of audiological evaluation of children can be planned. METHODS: Children were subject to newborn hearing screening and audiological evaluation. Newborn hearing screening is carried out prior to hospital discharge using the Automatic Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions test. Audiological evaluation is performed within the child age of 4 months by using maternal, pregnancy, and perinatal case history, COVID19 case history, otoscopy, acoustic immittance test, Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions test, and the Auditory Brainstem Response test. RESULTS: 63 children were included in the study. 82.5% of these children were subjects of the newborn hearing screening program. The remaining 11 newborns were not subjected to hearing screening due to isolation measures and their audiological evaluation was carried out directly. Only one of 52 screened neonates showed a bilateral REFER test result but hearing threshold was normal at audiological evaluation. Audiological evaluation showed normal bilateral ABR thresholds in 59/63 children. Four children (6.3% of the total) had ABR threshold alterations but two showed normal threshold at ABR retest performed within 1 month of the first. The other two infants showed monolateral ABR alterations but one of these had a concomitant middle ear effusion. In conclusion, only one child (1.6% of the sample) had an altered ABR. This child had shown one positive SARS-CoV-2 swab in the absence of risk factors for hearing loss. CONCLUSION: This study finds no evidence that maternal COVID19 infection is a risk factor in the development of congenital hearing loss in newborns.

Analysis of barriers and facilitators to early hearing detection and intervention in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There is slow progress in early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) services within South Africa. Audiologists are EHDI gatekeepers and can provide valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators that can progressively move EHDI towards best practice in South Africa. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to determine the barriers and facilitators to EHDI in KwaZulu-Natal as reported by audiologists/speech therapists and audiologists (A/STAs). METHOD: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. Telephonic interviews were conducted with 12 A/STAs working in public and private healthcare facilities, using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) conceptual framework. Data was analysed using thematic analysis in conjunction with NVivo software. RESULTS: One of the main barriers perceived by A/STAs, affecting EHDI was the lack of resources in healthcare facilities. The participants indicated that although there was a guideline in place to guide practice, it may be more suited to an urban area versus a rural area. Poor knowledge and awareness of EHDI was also identified as a barrier. Information provided from A/STAs at grassroots level, in the various provinces, may benefit in developing a more contextually relevant and practical guideline. Facilitators included; development of task teams specifically for EHDI programmes, creation of improved communication networks for collaboration and communication, training of healthcare professionals and improving data management systems. CONCLUSION: Strategies such as an increase in resources, further education and training, development of contextually relevant, culturally, and linguistically diverse practices and protocols need to be in place to improve EHDI implementation. Further research, clinical implications and limitations are provided emanating from the study.

Telemedicine for Patients With Unilateral Sudden Hearing Loss in the COVID-19 Era.

Importance: Developing a telemedicine tool to discriminate between patients who need urgent treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) from those who do not takes on special importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To explore the feasibility of a telemedicine model to assist in the evaluation of new-onset unilateral sudden hearing loss (SHL) among patients who do not have access to medical resources, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort investigation of a telemedicine model was conducted at a tertiary referral medical center between May 2020 and January 2021, with the interpreting physician blinded to the results of formal audiograms. The study included a consecutive sample of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) referred to the otolaryngology emergency department in our medical center with the chief complaint of new-onset unilateral SHL. Interventions: The telemedicine model comprised 2 sequential steps: a Weber test using the Hum Test and a smartphone-based vibration, and uHear app-based audiometry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Discrimination between patients with and without SSNHL by using the telemedicine model. All diagnoses subsequently confirmed by a formal audiogram. Results: Fifty-one patients with new-onset unilateral SHL participated in the study study (median age, 45 [range, 18-76] years; 28 [54.9%] men). The sensitivity and specificity of the telemedicine model for fulfilling the audiometric criteria of SSNHL (loss of ≥30 dB in ≥3 consecutive frequencies) were 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%) and 73% (95% CI, 54%-88%), respectively. The PPV was 72% (95% CI, 53%-87%), the NPV was 100% (95% CI, 85%-100%), and the accuracy was 84.3% (95% CI, 71%-93%). Although 8 participants had false-positive results, all of them had SSNHL that did not meet the full audiometric criteria. Conclusions and Relevance: The telemedicine model presented in this study for the diagnosis of SSNHL is valid and reliable. It may serve as a primary tool for the discrimination between patients in need of urgent care for SSNHL from those who are not, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delays in Infant Hearing Detection and Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Commentary.

Early detection and intervention for congenital hearing loss are critical for speech and language development. Newborns should receive hearing screening, diagnosis, and intervention by 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays in each step of this process. Increased out-of-hospital births and shortages of essential health care services likely reduced the proportion of newborns completing screening. Additional factors have contributed to delayed diagnosis. We estimate that up to 50% of infants born with hearing loss in Maryland in 2021 may be delayed in diagnosis. Hearing loss interventions have been affected due to delayed initiation, reduced availability, and lack of in-person services. Delayed diagnosis and treatment of congenital hearing loss are likely to have significant effects on individual patients and public health, the full magnitude of which will not be known for years. Opportunities exist for providers to mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 on pediatric hearing health care.

Newborn Hearing Screening Results of Infants Born To Mothers Who Had COVID-19 Disease During Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Viral infections are known to be a risk factor for neonatal hearing loss. COVID-19 infection has been reported to affect hearing test results in one small sample sized study. We aimed to investigate the incidence the risk of neonatal hearing loss in infants of mothers who had COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, regarding their trimesters, by evaluating the neonatal hearing screening results. DESIGN: In this retrospective case-control study, neonatal hearing test results of 458 women with a history of COVID-19 infection in pregnancy were compared with 339 women who gave birth before the pandemic. Data of pregnant women who attended the COVID-19 outpatient clinic of the emergency service of a tertiary pandemic hospital and who had confirmed infection with a reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test were determined from the hospital's records and their neonatal hearing screening results were analyzed from the national database. Neonates born before <34 weeks, and with reported risk factors in the database such as congenital anomaly or known TORCH infection during pregnancy were excluded. The screening tests, Automated Auditory Brainstem Response or Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emission (TEOAE), were used for screening, and patients who failed the first screening were reevaluated at least 2 weeks apart with a second screening. RESULTS: The incidence of failed second screening was 1.3% in the COVID-19 group and 2.9% in controls, and no significant difference was observed between the two groups according to the final screening results on the second test. Among the 458 mothers, 8 were infected in first trimester, 126 in second trimester, 127 in third trimester but did not deliver within 15 days after infection and 197 were positive at birth. Six neonates in the infected group failed the second screening (3 [2.4%] in the second trimester, 1 [0.8%] third trimester, and 2 [1.0%] positive at birth). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection during pregnancy was not found to be a risk factor for hearing loss, according to the newborn hearing screening results.

Hearing test results of newborns born from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infected mothers: A tertiary center experience in Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: Congenital infections can cause newborn hearing loss. Although vertical transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is theoretically possible, this has not been proven yet. To our knowledge, there is no previous report on whether COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can cause congenital hearing loss. This paper aimed to find an answer to this question. METHOD: This retrospective, single-center study was performed between April 2020 and May 2021 at a tertiary care referral center in Turkey. A total of 422 pregnant women who had coronavirus infection during pregnancy were followed and 203 of them gave birth in our institution. Results of hearing screening tests of 199 newborns were assessed retrospectively. RESULTS: Of patients included in the study, 23 (11.6%) had the disease in the first trimester, 62 (31.2%) in the second trimester, and 114 (57.3%) in the third trimester. In the first hearing test performed on newborns, unilateral hearing loss was observed in 21 babies (10.5%). Hearing tests of these newborns were found to be normal in the second test performed 15 days later. CONCLUSION: Considering the incidence of congenital hearing loss, the absence of hearing loss in our newborn population does not confirm the argument that coronavirus infection does not cause congenital hearing loss. This issue should be evaluated with larger patient series. In addition, it should be kept in mind that hearing loss can occur at later ages as well.