Neuromodulation (desynchronisation) for tinnitus in adults

Personalized Sound Therapy Combined with Low and High-Frequency Electromagnetic Stimulation for Chronic Tinnitus

This study investigates a novel multimodal treatment for chronic tinnitus, a condition that significantly affects quality of life, by combining personalized sound therapy with both low- and high-frequency electromagnetic wave stimulation. Conducted at Tor Vergata University Hospital in Rome, the research involved 55 patients and employed a portable medical device for therapy delivery. Treatment effectiveness was measured through the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI), Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ), and Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), encompassing initial sound therapy and subsequent multimodal treatment phases. Remarkably, 73% of participants experienced notable improvements in TFI scores, with 39% reporting a significant enhancement of 13 points or more. This improvement was mirrored in secondary outcomes like THI, VAS, and HQ scores, along with certain SF-36 domains, indicating enhanced life quality and reduced tinnitus distress. The study underscored high compliance and no adverse effects, suggesting the combined therapy's promising potential in chronic tinnitus management. The findings advocate for further research to discern the distinct contributions of each treatment modality, positing that this innovative approach could ameliorate tinnitus symptoms and improve patient well-being, confirming its safety and efficacy.

Determining the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on tinnitus and tinnitus-related outcomes: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Tinnitus is the awareness of a sound in the ear or head in the absence of an external source. It affects around 10%-15% of people. About 20% of people with tinnitus also experience symptoms such as depression or anxiety that negatively affect their life. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique involving constant low-intensity direct current delivered via electrodes on the head. It is postulated to modulate (suppress or enhance) neural activity in the region between electrodes. As such, it represents a potential treatment option for tinnitus, as well as comorbid depression or anxiety. This systematic review will estimate the effects of tDCS on outcomes relevant to tinnitus. In addition, it will determine whether there is any relationship between stimulation parameters (electrode montage, current intensity, and length and frequency of stimulation sessions) and the effect of tDCS on these outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Electronic searches for peer-reviewed journal articles will be performed in the Cochrane Register of Studies online (the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Register and CENTRAL, current issue), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, KoreaMed, IndMed, PakMediNet, CNKI, AMED, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and Google Scholar using the following search terms: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation OR tDCS AND tinnitus OR depression OR anxiety OR quality of life OR adverse effects OR neurophys*.Searches were not limited by date. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). Randomised controlled trials will be included if they report at least one of the following outcomes: tinnitus symptom severity, anxiety or depression as measured by relevant validated instruments. Where available, data on quality of life, adverse effects and neurophysiological changes will also be reviewed. In addition to an analysis of the effect of each parameter, an analysis will be performed to uncover any interactions between parameters. Where appropriate, meta-analyses will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will make use of secondary data only. As no data will be obtained from participants directly, ethical approval has not been sought. No other ethical issues are foreseen. Findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication and presented at academic conferences. The results of this review will inform future research.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020185567.

A process for prioritising systematic reviews in tinnitus

Objective: To develop an innovative prioritisation process to identify topics for new or updated systematic reviews of tinnitus research.Design: A two-stage prioritisation process was devised. First, a scoping review assessed the amount of randomized controlled trial-level evidence available. This enabled development of selection criteria for future reviews, aided the design of template protocol and suggested the scale of work that would be required to conduct these reviews. Second, using the pre-defined primary and secondary criteria, interventions were prioritised for systematic review.Study sample: Searches identified 1080 records. After removal of duplicates and out of scope works, 437 records remained for full data charting.Results: The process was tested, using subjective tinnitus as the clinical condition and using Cochrane as the systematic review platform. The criteria produced by this process identified three high priority reviews: (1) Sound therapy using amplification devices and/or sound generators; (2) Betahistine and (3) Cognitive behaviour therapy. Further secondary priorities were: (4) Gingko biloba, (5) Anxiolytics, (6) Hypnotics, (7) Antiepileptics and (8) Neuromodulation.Conclusions: A process was developed which successfully identified priority areas for Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for subjective tinnitus. This technique could easily be transferred to other conditions and other types of systematic reviews.

Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus

BACKGROUND

Tinnitus affects 10% to 15% of the adult population, with about 20% of these experiencing symptoms that negatively affect quality of life. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression. Hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices (amplification and sound generation within one device) are a component of many tinnitus management programmes and together with information and advice are a first line of management in audiology departments for someone who has tinnitus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with acute or chronic subjective idiopathic tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved hearing aids, sound generators or combination hearing aids and compared them to waiting list control, placebo or education/information only with no device. We also included studies comparing hearing aids to sound generators, combination hearing aids to hearing aids, and combination hearing aids to sound generators.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity as measured as a global score on multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and significant adverse effects as indicated by an increase in self-reported tinnitus loudness. Our secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, symptoms of generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and adverse effects associated with wearing the device such as pain, discomfort, tenderness or skin irritation, or ear infections. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included eight studies (with a total of 590 participants). Seven studies investigated the effects of hearing aids, four combination hearing aids and three sound generators. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs and one had a cross-over design. In general, risk of bias was unclear due to lack of detail about sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was also little or no use of blinding.No data for our outcomes were available for any of our three main comparisons (comparing hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices with a waiting list control group, placebo or education/information only). Data for our additional comparisons (comparing these devices with each other) were also few, with limited potential for data pooling.Hearing aid only versus sound generator device onlyOne study compared patients fitted with sound generators versus those fitted with hearing aids and found no difference between them in their effects on our primary outcome, tinnitus symptom severity measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) at 3, 6 or 12 months (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Combination hearing aid versus hearing aid onlyThree studies compared combination hearing aids with hearing aids and measured tinnitus symptom severity using the THI or Tinnitus Functional Index. When we pooled the data we found no difference between them (standardised mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to 0.22; three studies; 114 participants) (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was again associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies.None of the studies measured the secondary outcomes of depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life as measured by a validated instrument, nor the newly developed core outcomes tinnitus intrusiveness, ability to ignore, concentration, quality of sleep and sense of control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the superiority of sound therapy for tinnitus over waiting list control, placebo or education/information with no device. There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority or inferiority of any of the sound therapy options (hearing aid, sound generator or combination hearing aid) over each other. The quality of evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, was low. Using a combination device, hearing aid or sound generator might result in little or no difference in tinnitus symptom severity.Future research into the effectiveness of sound therapy in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.

A State-of-the-Art Review: Personalization of Tinnitus Sound Therapy

Background: There are several established, and an increasing number of putative, therapies using sound to treat tinnitus. There appear to be few guidelines for sound therapy selection and application. Aim: To review current approaches to personalizing sound therapy for tinnitus. Methods: A "state-of-the-art" review (Grant and Booth, 2009) was undertaken to answer the question: how do current sound-based therapies for tinnitus adjust for tinnitus heterogeneity? Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase and PubMed were searched for the 10-year period 2006-2016. The search strategy used the following key words: "tinnitus" AND "sound" AND "therapy" AND "guidelines" OR "personalized" OR "customized" OR "individual" OR "questionnaire" OR "selection." The results of the review were cataloged and organized into themes. Results: In total 165 articles were reviewed in full, 83 contained sufficient details to contribute to answering the study question. The key themes identified were hearing compensation, pitched-match therapy, maskability, reaction to sound and psychosocial factors. Although many therapies mentioned customization, few could be classified as being personalized. Several psychoacoustic and questionnaire-based methods for assisting treatment selection were identified. Conclusions: Assessment methods are available to assist clinicians to personalize sound-therapy and empower patients to be active in therapy decision-making. Most current therapies are modified using only one characteristic of the individual and/or their tinnitus.