Treatment of Menière's Disease

OPINION STATEMENT

Diagnosis of Menière's disease is made with a characteristic patient history, including discrete episodes of vertigo lasting 20 min or longer, accompanied by sensorineural hearing loss, which is typically low frequency at first, aural fullness, and tinnitus. Workup includes audiometry, a contrast enhanced MRI of the internal auditory canals, and exclusion of other diseases that can produce similar symptoms, like otosyphilis, autoimmune inner ear disease, perilymphatic fistula, superior semicircular canal syndrome, Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, vestibular paroxysmia, and temporal bone tumors. A history of migraine should be sought as well because of a high rate of co-occurrence (Rauch, Otolaryngol Clin North Am 43:1011-1017, 2010). Treatment begins with conservative measures, including low salt diet, avoidance of stress and caffeine, and sleep hygiene. Medical therapy with a diuretic is the usual next step. If that fails to control symptoms, then the options of intratympanic (IT) steroids and betahistine are discussed. Next tier treatments include the Meniett device and endolymphatic sac surgery, but the efficacy of both is controversial. If the above measures fail to provide symptomatic control of vertigo, then ablative therapies like intratympanic gentamicin are considered. Rarely, vestibular nerve section or labyrinthectomy is considered for a patient with severe symptoms who does not show a reduction in vestibular function with gentamicin. Benzodiazepines and anti-emetics are used for symptomatic control during vertigo episodes. Rehabilitative options for unilateral vestibular weakness include physical therapy and for unilateral hearing loss include conventional hearing aids, contralateral routing of sound (CROS) and osseointegrated hearing aids.

Practical guide to understanding clinical research compliance

Noncompliance with federal regulations, as monitored through institutional review boards for the ethical conduct of clinical research, can occur, even to seasoned investigators. The cause of this noncompliance can be that an investigator is overloaded, does not know the regulations, or does not take the time to pay attention to the details. Sometimes it happens just because of inevitable human error that can befall us all at any time. The authors begin by citing the inherent differences between clinical practice and clinical research. This is followed by an illustration of common noncompliance errors, with examples, followed by general and specific concepts and methods to minimize noncompliance events. The objective of this article is to condense the myriad details involved in conducting clinical research into a set of manageable recommendations that can be recalled easily before and during the research. The material supporting these recommendations comes from years of institutional review board work at several institutions and consultation with experienced principal investigators and their research coordinators.

Motion sensitivity and caloric responsiveness in vestibular migraine and Meniere's disease

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

We examined whether scores on a motion sensitivity questionnaire (MSQ) could distinguish between vestibular migraine (VM) and Meniere's disease (MD). As a secondary goal, we examined whether scores on the MSQ correlated with results from caloric testing.

STUDY DESIGN

This study administered a telephone questionnaire to subjects who met clinical criteria for vestibular migraine, Meniere's disease, and controls.

METHODS

A MSQ was administered to 20 subjects meeting American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO) criteria for MD, 30 subjects meeting Neuhauser criteria for both probable vestibular migraine (pVM) and definite vestibular migraine (dVM), and 22 controls.

RESULTS

The average score on the MSQ was 5.9 for VM, 4.25 for MD, and 0.4 for controls. Both the VM and MD scored significantly higher than the controls (P = 0.0001), but results were not statistically different from each other (P = 0.17). However, the average score for subjects with dVM was 7.1, which was significantly higher than subjects with pVM whose average score was 4.2 (P = 0.045) and higher than subjects with MD (P = 0.048). When each question of the MSQ was analyzed, motion sensitivity to riding in a car was found to be significantly different between VM (average score 1.1) and MD (average score 0.5), with P value of 0.048. Scores of MSQ did not correlate with the total eye speed (TES) on caloric testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with VM and MD had elevated levels of motion sensitivity compared to controls. Subjects with VM had more motion sensitivity to riding in a car than those with MD, but their TES was not different.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3b.

Practical guide to understanding Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)

"Comparative effectiveness research" (CER) is not a new concept; however, recently it has been popularized as a method to develop scientifically sound actionable data by which patients, physicians, payers, and policymakers may make informed health care decisions. Fundamental to CER is that the comparative data are derived from large diverse populations of patients assembled from point-of-care general primary care practices and that measured outcomes include patient value judgments. The challenge is to obtain scientifically valid data to be acted upon by decision-making stakeholders with potentially quite diversely different agenda. The process requires very thoughtful research designs modulated by complex statistical and analytic methods. This article is composed of a guiding narrative with an extensive set of tables outlining many of the details required in performing and understanding CER. It ends with short discussions of three example papers, limitations of the method, and how a practicing physician may view such reports.