Last reviewed · How we verify

NCT02772757

Coupler-Based Hearing-Aid Fitting Approach for Experienced Users

Completed NA Results posted Last updated 10 May 2019
What this trial tests

NA trial testing standard hearing aid fitting in Hearing Loss in 77 participants. Completed in 29 December 2017.

Timeline
4 January 2016
Primary endpoint
1 May 2017
29 December 2017

Quick facts

Lead sponsorVA Office of Research and Development
PhaseNA
StatusCompleted
Study typeINTERVENTIONAL
Allocationrandomized
Designparallel
Maskingnone
Primary purposetreatment
Enrollment77
Start date4 January 2016
Primary completion1 May 2017
Estimated completion29 December 2017
Sites1 location across United States

Drugs / interventions tested

Conditions studied

Sponsor

VA Office of Research and Development — full company profile →

Who can join

Adults 18 to 85, any sex, with Hearing Loss. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.

Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov

Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.

in Situ Real-ear Aided Response (REAR) Primary · at the visit where in-situ real ear measurements are made (immediate post-fitting)

Deviation from prescriptive target (re: in situ REAR) from both ears of each participant for each group. This measure reflects the accuracy of the hearing aid fittings from 250 Hz through 3000 Hz (the average bandwidth of audibility).

GroupValue95% CI
Standard of Care Group-.21± 0.80
Average RECD Group-1.86± 2.95
Measured RECD Group0.05± 2.36
Client-Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) Secondary · 1 month post-fitting

The listener nominates up to five listening goals. After hearing-aid use, the listener assesses two outcomes for each goal. One outcome is the degree of change relative to the patient's unaided experience. Responses are recorded on a 5 unit categorical scale from 'worse' to 'much better'. The second outcome is the final satisfactory 'aided' ability for each goal as measured on a 5 unit categorical scale from hardy ever (10%) to almost always (95%). Higher scores reflect better outcomes for nominated goals. We calculated the percent of better and much better responses over the nominated goals a

degree of change
GroupValue95% CI
Standard of Care Group87.3± 26.3
Average RECD Group82.9± 30.2
Measured RECD Group71.8± 36.5
final ability
GroupValue95% CI
Standard of Care Group78.2± 15.2
Average RECD Group80.0± 20.8
Measured RECD Group67.8± 27.2
Device Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) Scale Secondary · 1 month post-fitting

The questionnaire is comprised of 28 items making up the following six subscales related to listening performance with hearing aids: (1) speech cues, (2) listening effort, (3) pleasantness, (4) quietness, (5) convenience, and (6) use. Responses from 'not at all' (1 point) to tremendously (7 points) are recorded for each item and are averaged across all items to obtain a total scale score. Higher scores reflect higher outcomes. The minimum and maximum total scores can range from 1-7 and for the three groups were: standard of care group (3.8-6.8), Average RECD group (3.3-6.7), and measured RCD g

GroupValue95% CI
Standard of Care Group5.7± 0.8
Average RECD Group5.9± 0.8
Measured RECD Group5.5± 0.7
Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) Secondary · 1 month post-fitting

The SADL questionnaire has 15 items that examine self-reported hearing-aid satisfaction. The following four subscales are included: (1) positive effect, (2) negative features, (3) personal image, and (4) service and cost. Item 14 is omitted in populations who do not pay for hearing aids. Responses are on a 1 to 7 scale with higher numbers reflecting higher outcomes. The item responses are averaged to determine the total satisfaction score that can range from 1-7. The minimum and maximum total scores for the three groups were: standard of care group (5.1-7.0); average RECD group (4.2-6.9), and

GroupValue95% CI
Standard of Care Group6.2± 0.6
Average RECD Group6.0± 0.6
Measured RECD Group6.0± 0.5

Sponsor's own description

The overall aim of the study is to compare the verification accuracy and hearing-aid outcomes between the traditional, fitting approach where the patient is present during the visit and a coupler-based fitting approach where the patient is not present and mailed their hearing aids. If the coupler-based fitting protocol tested in this study as effective as the traditional fitting protocol, then patients receiving replacement hearing aids may circumvent a face-to-face visit.

Publications & conference data

No peer-reviewed publications indexed yet for this trial. Completed trials usually publish results within 12-18 months.

Verify or expand the search:

Other recruiting trials for Hearing Loss

Currently open trials in the same condition.

Other VA Office of Research and Development trials

Trials by the same sponsor.

Verify against primary sources

Data sources for this page

Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT02772757.

Primary sources · FDA · ClinicalTrials.gov · EMA · SEC EDGAR · ChEMBL · Wikidata · full sourcing