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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Smartphone-Based Applications to Detect Hearing Loss: A Review of Current Technology.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a widely prevalent yet manageable condition that has been linked to neurocognitive and psychiatric comorbidities. Multiple barriers hinder older individuals from being diagnosed with ARHL through pure-tone audiometry. This is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in the closure of many outpatient audiology and otolaryngology offices. Smartphone-based hearing assessment apps may overcome these challenges by enabling patients to remotely self-administer their own hearing examination. The objective of this review is to provide an up-to-date overview of current mobile health applications (apps) that claim to assess hearing. DESIGN: Narrative review. MEASUREMENTS: The Apple App Store and Google Play Store were queried for apps that claim to assess hearing. Relevant apps were downloaded and used to conduct a mock hearing assessment. Names of included apps were searched on four literature databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) to determine which apps had been validated against gold standard methods. RESULTS: App store searches identified 44 unique apps. Apps differed with respect to the type of test offered (e.g., hearing threshold test), cost, strategies to reduce ambient noise, test output (quantitative vs qualitative results), and options to export results. Validation studies were identified for seven apps. CONCLUSION: Given their low cost and relative accessibility, smartphone-based hearing apps may facilitate screening for ARHL, particularly in the setting of limitations on in-person medical care due to COVID-19. However, app features vary widely, few apps have been validated, and user-centered designs for older adults are largely lacking. Further research and validation efforts are necessary to determine whether smartphone-based hearing assessments are a feasible and accurate screening tool for ARHL. Key Points Age-related hearing loss is a prevalent yet undertreated condition among older adults. Why Does this Paper Matter? Smartphone-based hearing test apps may facilitate remote screening for hearing loss, but limitations surrounding app validation, usability, equipment calibration, and data security should be addressed.