biostudies-literatureUnknown5(3)Morton S<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote cochlear implant (CI) programming. The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate that speech recognition in quiet after remote fitting is no worse than speech recognition in quiet after in-person office fitting. The primary safety endpoint was the absence of unanticipated adverse device effects related to remote programming.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>Prospective within-subjects interventional study at 5 US centers.<h4>Participants</h4>17 CI recipients (12 electric-only [EO] hearing; 5 with aidable residual hearing) with a minimum of 6 months of CI experience.<h4>Intervention</h4>Programming conducted in person and remotely via a smartphone application.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Speech recognition, fitting duration, and subjective questionnaires.<h4>Results</h4>In the EO cohort, mean AzBio speech recognition for in-person created programs was 89.28% (SE = 3.48), compared with 91.94% (SE = 2.76) for programs created remotely. The combined EO and aidable residual hearing cohort's mean speech recognition for programs created in person was 89.04% (SE = 2.66) versus 90.99% (SE = 2.09) for remotely created programs. The observed <i>P</i> value for EO and pooled cohorts was <0.001, indicating that speech recognition in quiet after remote fitting is no worse than that after in-person fitting. Absolute differences in fitting durations between programming methods ranged from 3 to 11 minutes. The total time spent for a typical CI office visit ranged from 1 to more than 4 hours for 88.3% of study participants.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Remote programming provides noninferior outcomes to in-person programming and represents an important step toward improving the accessibility and affordability of obtaining audiology services by eliminating the need to travel. Participants and audiologists rated remote programming positively.Otology & neurotology opene073https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12466901biostudies-literatureRemote Programming of Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: Clinical Trial Results.PMC12466901Agrawal SLewis KDwyer BBrown CNelson MPassmore CDwyer NHolden LIannuzzi KStein AGalster JMorton SZlomke SFirszt JfalseRemote Programming of Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: Clinical Trial Results.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote cochlear implant (CI) programming. The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate that speech recognition in quiet after remote fitting is no worse than speech recognition in quiet after in-person office fitting. The primary safety endpoint was the absence of unanticipated adverse device effects related to remote programming.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>Prospective within-subjects interventional study at 5 US centers.<h4>Participants</h4>17 CI recipients (12 electric-only [EO] hearing; 5 with aidable residual hearing) with a minimum of 6 months of CI experience.<h4>Intervention</h4>Programming conducted in person and remotely via a smartphone application.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Speech recognition, fitting duration, and subjective questionnaires.<h4>Results</h4>In the EO cohort, mean AzBio speech recognition for in-person created programs was 89.28% (SE = 3.48), compared with 91.94% (SE = 2.76) for programs created remotely. The combined EO and aidable residual hearing cohort's mean speech recognition for programs created in person was 89.04% (SE = 2.66) versus 90.99% (SE = 2.09) for remotely created programs. The observed <i>P</i> value for EO and pooled cohorts was <0.001, indicating that speech recognition in quiet after remote fitting is no worse than that after in-person fitting. Absolute differences in fitting durations between programming methods ranged from 3 to 11 minutes. The total time spent for a typical CI office visit ranged from 1 to more than 4 hours for 88.3% of study participants.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Remote programming provides noninferior outcomes to in-person programming and represents an important step toward improving the accessibility and affordability of obtaining audiology services by eliminating the need to travel. Participants and audiologists rated remote programming positively.2025-01-01T00:00:00Z2025 Sep2026-06-03T23:16:00.249Z2026-05-02T03:11:49.566ZS-EPMC124669014101779910.1097/ONO.0000000000000073