Intratympanic glucocorticoids for sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Intratympanic corticosteroids for sudden sensorineural hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, however their value remains unclear. Intratympanic injections of corticosteroids have become increasingly common in the treatment of ISSNHL.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intratympanic corticosteroids in people with ISSNHL.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2021, Issue 9); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 September 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with ISSNHL and follow-up of over a week. Intratympanic corticosteroids were given as primary or secondary treatment (after failure of systemic therapy).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods, including GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was change in hearing threshold with pure tone audiometry. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people whose hearing improved, final hearing threshold, speech audiometry, frequency-specific hearing changes and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 studies, comprising 2133 analysed participants. Some studies had more than two treatment arms and were therefore relevant to several comparisons. Studies investigated intratympanic corticosteroids as either primary (initial) therapy or secondary (rescue) therapy after failure of initial treatment. 1. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus systemic corticosteroids as primary therapy We identified 16 studies (1108 participants). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no improvement in the change in hearing threshold (mean difference (MD) -5.93 dB better, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.61 to -4.26; 10 studies; 701 participants; low-certainty). We found little to no difference in the proportion of participants whose hearing was improved (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 14 studies; 972 participants; moderate-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no difference in the final hearing threshold (MD -3.31 dB, 95% CI -6.16 to -0.47; 7 studies; 516 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may increase the number of people who experience vertigo or dizziness (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.54; 1 study; 250 participants; low-certainty) and probably increases the number of people with ear pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 6.22 to 39.49; 2 studies; 289 participants; moderate-certainty). It also resulted in persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 3.9%; 3 studies; 359 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo/dizziness at the time of injection (1% to 21%, 3 studies; 197 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (10.5% to 27.1%; 2 studies; 289 participants; low-certainty). 2. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as primary therapy We identified 10 studies (788 participants). Combined therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -8.55 dB better, 95% CI -12.48 to -4.61; 6 studies; 435 participants; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain as to whether combined therapy changes the proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 10 studies; 788 participants; very low-certainty). Combined therapy may result in slightly lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds but the evidence is very uncertain, and it is not clear whether the change would be important to patients (MD -9.11 dB, 95% CI -16.56 to -1.67; 3 studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received combined therapy. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 5.5%; 5 studies; 474 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 0% to 8.1%; 4 studies; 341 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (13.5%; 1 study; 73 participants; very low-certainty).  3. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus no treatment or placebo as secondary therapy We identified seven studies (279 participants). Intratympanic therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -9.07 dB better, 95% CI -11.47 to -6.66; 7 studies; 280 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 5.55, 95% CI 2.89 to 10.68; 6 studies; 232 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds (MD -11.09 dB, 95% CI -17.46 to -4.72; 5 studies; 203 participants; low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received intratympanic injection. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 4.2%; 5 studies; 185 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 6.7% to 33%; 3 studies; 128 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (0%; 1 study; 44 participants; very low-certainty).  4. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as secondary therapy We identified one study with 76 participants. Change in hearing threshold was not reported. Combined therapy may result in a higher proportion with hearing improvement, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.55; very low-certainty). Adverse effects were poorly reported with only data for persistent tympanic membrane perforation (rate 8.1%, very low-certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the evidence in this review is low- or very low-certainty, therefore it is likely that further studies may change our conclusions.   For primary therapy, intratympanic corticosteroids may have little or no effect compared with systemic corticosteroids. There may be a slight benefit from combined treatment when compared with systemic treatment alone, but the evidence is uncertain. For secondary therapy, there is low-certainty evidence that intratympanic corticosteroids, when compared to no treatment or placebo, may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved, but may only have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold. It is very uncertain whether there is additional benefit from combined treatment over systemic steroids alone. Although adverse effects were poorly reported, the different risk profiles of intratympanic treatment (including tympanic membrane perforation, pain and dizziness/vertigo) and systemic treatment (for example, blood glucose problems) should be considered when selecting appropriate treatment.

Steroids for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2006 and previously updated in 2009.Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) is a clinical diagnosis characterised by a sudden deafness of cochlear or retrocochlear origin in the absence of a clear precipitating cause. Steroids are commonly prescribed to treat this condition. There is no consensus on their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether steroids in the treatment of ISSHL a) improve hearing (primary) and b) reduce tinnitus (secondary).To determine the incidence of significant side effects from the medication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 22 April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified all randomised controlled trials (with or without blinding) in which steroids were evaluated in comparison with either no treatment or a placebo. We considered trials including the use of steroids in combination with another treatment if the comparison control group also received the same other treatment. The two authors reviewed the full-text articles of all the retrieved trials of possible relevance and applied the inclusion criteria independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We graded trials for risk of bias using the Cochrane approach. The data extraction was performed in a standardised manner by one author and rechecked by the other author. Where necessary we contacted investigators to obtain the missing information. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor considered appropriate because of the heterogeneity of the populations studied and the differences in steroid formulations, dosages and duration of treatment. We analysed and reported the quality of the results of each study individually. A narrative overview of the results is presented.

MAIN RESULTS

Only three trials, involving 267 participants, satisfied the inclusion criteria and all three studies were at high risk of bias. One trial showed a lack of effect of oral steroids in improving hearing compared with the placebo control group. The second trial showed a significant improvement of hearing in 61% of the patients receiving oral steroid and in only 32% of the patients from the control group (combination of placebo-treated group and untreated control group). The third trial also showed a lack of effect of oral steroids in improving hearing compared with the placebo control. However, this trial did not follow strict inclusion criteria for participant selection and analysis of data was limited by significant exclusion of participants from the final analysis and lack of participant compliance to the treatment protocol. No clear evidence was presented in two trials about any harmful side effects of the steroids. Only one study declared that no patients suffered from adverse effects of the steroid treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The value of steroids in the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss remains unclear since the evidence obtained from randomised controlled trials is contradictory in outcome, in part because the studies are based upon too small a number of patients.

Intratympanic steroids for Ménière's disease or syndrome

BACKGROUND

Ménière's disease is a disorder characterised by hearing loss, tinnitus and disabling vertigo. The use of intratympanic steroids to reduce the severity of these symptoms has been gaining popularity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of intratympanic steroids on the frequency and severity of attacks of vertigo, on chronic symptoms such as tinnitus, imbalance and hearing loss, and on the progression of these symptoms in patients with definite Ménière's disease or syndrome, as defined by the AAO-HNS Committee.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 13 January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of intratympanic dexamethasone versus placebo in patients with Ménière's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A single trial containing 22 patients, with a low risk of bias was included. This trial found that after 24 months, compared with placebo, the use of intratympanic dexamethasone demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in vertigo as defined by a respective improvement in functional level (90% versus 42%), class (82% versus 57%), change in Dizziness Handicap Inventory scores (60.4 versus 41.3) and mean vertigo subjective improvement (90% versus 57%). The treatment regime described by the authors involved daily injections of dexamethasone solution 4 mg/ml for five consecutive days. These results were clinically significant. No complications were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of a single trial provide limited evidence to support the effectiveness of intratympanic steroids in patients with Ménière's disease. This trial demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant improvement of the frequency and severity of vertigo measured 24 months after the treatment was administered. It is important to note that there were a few aspects of the study which we were unable to clarify with the study authors.

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss is usually unilateral and can be associated with tinnitus and vertigo. In most cases the cause is not identified, although various infective, vascular, and immune causes have been proposed. A careful examination is needed to exclude life threatening or treatable causes such as vascular events and malignant diseases, and patients should be referred urgently for further assessment. About half of patients completely recover, usually in about 2 weeks. Many treatments are used, including corticosteroids, antiviral drugs, and vasoactive and oxygen-based treatments. Although no treatment is proven, we recommend a short course of oral high-dose corticosteroids. There is much to learn about pathogenesis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss, and more clinical trials are needed to establish evidence-based management.