Study Boosts Case for OTC Hearing Aids

https://goo.gl/oe4SAA

In a highly controlled comparison study, several over-the-counter hearing assistance devices performed almost as well as a conventional hearing aid that cost thousands of dollars more.

Three of five selected personal sound amplification products (PSAP) were found to improve speech understanding among participants with mild-to-moderate hearing loss to a degree that was comparable to results obtained with a hearing aid, Nicholas Reed, AuD, of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and colleagues wrote in the July 4 issue of JAMA.

Congress is currently considering rare, bipartisan legislation that would allow these devices to be marketed as direct-to-consumer products subject to FDA regulation. At present, hearing aids can only be purchased through a licensed hearing specialist.

Hearing aids for both ears typically cost around $4,500, while PSAPs cost several hundred dollars or less.

The Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017 is being sponsored in the Senate by Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and in the House by Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Reed told MedPage Today that the study findings lend support to the creation of the new regulatory classification for hearing aids.

"Some of these devices did about as well as the hearing aid in our controlled environment, suggesting that some PSAPs are pretty good," he said. "Perhaps we should support the movement to get these in the hands of more people and to regulate them to improve the quality of the products."

Among the main findings:

  • The hearing aid and four of the PSAPs improved speech understanding, compared to the unaided condition.
  • The mean unaided accuracy was 76.5% and the hearing aid improved speech understanding accuracy to 88.4% (absolute improvement = 11.9%, 95% CI 9.8-14.0).
  • Three of the PSAPs showed improvements that were within five percentage points of the hearing aid (Sound World Solutions CS50+ = 11.0, 95% CI 8.8-13.1; Soundhawk = 10.2, 95% CI 8.0-12.3); Etymotic BEAN = 7.7, 95% CI 5.5-8.9).
  • Speech understanding was poorer with one device than in unaided testing (accuracy 65.3%, -11.2% difference, 95% CI -15.2 to -7.31).

Reed noted that the poor performance of the device that was not chosen for its favorable electroacoustic properties highlights the need for regulation of the products and greater transparency to consumers.

"If I had to guess, I would say that more products on the market right now are low quality than high quality," he said.