Prognostic indicators for decrease in tinnitus severity after cervical physical therapy in patients with cervicogenic somatic tinnitus

Somatosensory Tinnitus: Recent Developments in Diagnosis and Treatment

Somatosensory tinnitus (ST) is a type of tinnitus where changes in somatosensory input from the head-neck area are one of the influencing factors of a patient's tinnitus. As there are often several influencing factors, identifying a clear somatosensory influence on an individual patient's tinnitus is often a challenge. Therefore, a decision tree using four clinical criteria has been proposed that can help diagnose ST with an accuracy of 82.2%, a sensitivity of 82.5%, and a specificity of 79%. Once correctly diagnosed, patients can be successfully treated using a musculoskeletal physical therapy treatment. This type of treatment can either be directed at cervical spine dysfunctions, temporomandibular disorders, or both and consists of a combination of counseling, exercises, and manual techniques to restore normal function of the cervical spine and temporomandibular area. Other techniques have been suggested but need further investigation in larger RCTs. In most cases, ST treatment shows a decrease in tinnitus severity or loudness, but in rare cases, total remission of the tinnitus is achieved.

Prevalence of Somatosensory Tinnitus in Veterans With Tinnitus

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to estimate the prevalence of somatosensory tinnitus (ST) among Veterans with tinnitus.

DESIGN

Three hundred four Veterans with tinnitus were phone screened for ST by performing and reporting on a series of head/neck/jaw maneuvers. A random sample of 12 individuals who screened positive and five who screened negative attended an in-person visit to confirm the presence/absence of ST.

RESULTS

Of the 304 Veterans, 12 could not complete the screening maneuvers, 205 screened positive, and 87 screened negative. A Bayesian estimator that combines phone screening and in-person exam results establishes the prevalence of ST among Veterans with tinnitus at 56% with a 90% Bayesian confidence interval of 45% to 65%.

CONCLUSIONS

At least half of Veterans with tinnitus have ST, suggesting that a sizable at-need population exists. Treatment addressing the biomechanical component has the potential to improve tinnitus symptoms.

Effectiveness of bimodal auditory and electrical stimulation in patients with tinnitus: A feasibility study

Background

Tinnitus is a common symptom, affecting about 10–15% of the adult population. When input from the somatosensory system can influence and/or elicit tinnitus, this type of subjective tinnitus is called somatosensory tinnitus. Recently, a new type of bimodal neurostimulation treatment has shown promising results for a specific subgroup within the somatosensory tinnitus population. It is, however, not clear if this bimodal stimulation is also effective in patients with other types of subjective tinnitus.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of non-invasive bimodal auditory-somatosensory stimulation in reducing tinnitus severity among a general population of people with subjective tinnitus.

Methods

Chronic subjective tinnitus patients were recruited from the ENT department of the Antwerp University Hospital. Somatosensory stimulation was delivered by Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), and it was combined with auditory stimulation via headphones. The therapy comprised six sessions of thirty minutes twice a week for a period of 3 consecutive weeks. Follow up measurements were scheduled 9–12 weeks after the last treatment session. The change of the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) score, a questionnaire evaluating tinnitus burden and effects on the quality of life, was the primary outcome measure.

Results

Twenty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. A linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze the efficacy of bimodal treatment. The results of this analysis showed a statistically significant decrease (by 6, 9 points) in average TFI score at the follow up visit when compared to baseline. The ability to modulate tinnitus did not have an influence on the treatment results.

Conclusion

Our study showed that bimodal stimulation is a feasible and safe method of tinnitus treatment. The method might be an effective treatment for some participants with tinnitus, especially those who have accompanying neck/temporomandibular problems, although, the evidence from this trial is quite weak. Additional research is needed toward establishing the optimal treatment protocol, as well as selecting the most appropriate inclusion criteria.

Risk of Vestibulocochlear Disorders in Patients with Migraine or Non-Migraine Headache

Headaches, especially migraines, have been associated with various vestibular symptoms and syndromes. Tinnitus and hearing loss have also been reported to be more prevalent among migraineurs. However, whether headaches, including migraine or non-migraine headaches (nMH), are associated with vestibular and cochlear disorders remains unclear. Thus, we sought to investigate possible associations between headache and vestibulocochlear disorders. We analyzed 10 years of data from the Smart Clinical Data Warehouse. In patients with migraines and nMH, meniere’s disease (MD), BPPV, vestibular neuronitis (VN) and cochlear disorders, such as sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and tinnitus, were collected and compared to clinical data from controls who had health check-ups without headache. Participants included 15,128 with migraines, 76,773 patients with nMH and controls were identified based on propensity score matching (PSM). After PSM, the odds ratios (OR) in subjects with migraine versus controls were 2.59 for MD, 2.05 for BPPV, 2.98 for VN, 1.74 for SNHL, and 1.97 for tinnitus, respectively (p < 0.001). The OR for MD (1.77), BPPV (1.73), VN (2.05), SNHL (1.40), and tinnitus (1.70) in patients with nMH was also high after matching (p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that migraines and nMH are associated with an increased risk of cochlear disorders in addition to vestibular disorders.

Investigating tinnitus subgroups based on hearing-related difficulties

PURPOSE

Meaningfully grouping individuals with tinnitus who share a common characteristics (ie, subgrouping, phenotyping) may help tailor interventions to certain tinnitus subgroups and hence reduce outcome variability. The purpose of this study was to test if the presence of tinnitus subgroups are discernible based on hearing-related comorbidities, and to identify predictors of tinnitus severity for each subgroup identified.

METHODS

An exploratory cross-sectional study was used. The study was nested within an online survey distributed worldwide to investigate tinnitus experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main outcome measure was the tinnitus Handicap Inventory- Screening Version.

RESULTS

From the 3400 respondents, 2980 were eligible adults with tinnitus with an average age of 58 years (SD = 14.7) and 49% (n = 1457) being female. A three-cluster solution identified distinct subgroups, namely, those with tinnitus-only (n = 1306; 44%), those presenting with tinnitus, hyperacusis, hearing loss and/or misophonia (n = 795; 27%), and those with tinnitus and hearing loss (n = 879; 29%). Those with tinnitus and hyperacusis reported the highest tinnitus severity (M = 20.3; SD = 10.5) and those with tinnitus and no hearing loss had the lowest tinnitus severity (M = 15.7; SD = 10.4). Younger age and the presence of mental health problems predicted greater tinnitus severity for all groups (β ≤ -0.1, P ≤ .016).

CONCLUSION

Further exploration of these potential subtypes are needed in both further research and clinical practice by initially triaging tinnitus patients prior to their clinical appointments based on the presence of hearing-related comorbidities. Unique management pathways and interventions could be tailored for each tinnitus subgroup.

Somatosensory Tinnitus Diagnosis: Diagnostic Value of Existing Criteria

BACKGROUND

Tinnitus can be influenced by changes in somatosensory afference from the cervical spine or temporomandibular area, then called somatosensory or somatic tinnitus (ST). In 2018, a new set of diagnostic criteria for ST was agreed upon by a large group of ST experts. Currently, however, it still requires extensive and specific expertise to diagnose ST correctly. The next step in the development of easily applicable diagnostic criteria is to assess the diagnostic value of each individual criterion.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was, therefore, to further investigate the diagnostic value of these criteria, validate them empirically, and identify their sensitivity and specificity.

METHODS

An online survey, questioning the presence of 12 diagnostic criteria for ST in a convenience sample of participants with tinnitus, was launched on the online forum Tinnitus Talk, managed by Tinnitus Hub. Participants were divided into three groups: a group with no somatic influence, a group with some somatic influence and a group with large somatic influence on their tinnitus. Chi-square tests were used to calculate differences between these groups. Afterward, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), and pre- and posttest probabilities were calculated for each ST diagnostic criterion. For this analysis, all patients with some and large somatic influence were compared as one group to the group with no somatic influence.

RESULTS

In total, 8221 participants filled out the online survey. As expected, the diagnostic criteria for ST are more prevalent in the groups with somatic influence, but the criterium of tinnitus modulation also often occurs in the group with no somatic influence. The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of both tinnitus and pain complaints have the highest positive LR (6.29 and 10.72, respectively), next to the influence of certain postures on the tinnitus (+LR: 6.04). To rule out ST, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles are most suited, as they decrease the posttest probability to 18% and 19%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of tinnitus and neck or jaw pain and the influence of certain postures are most suited to use as a single criterion for identifying patients with a somatic influence on their tinnitus. On the other hand, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles is valid criterion to rule out a somatic influence. Additional analysis is needed to identify clusters of symptoms and criteria to further aid ST diagnosis.

Prognostic Indicators for Positive Treatment Outcome After Multidisciplinary Orofacial Treatment in Patients With Somatosensory Tinnitus

Introduction

Subjective tinnitus that is influenced by the somatosensory system is called somatosensory tinnitus (ST). When ST is related to the temporomandibular area, multidisciplinary orofacial treatment can reduce tinnitus severity. It is, however, unknown if we can predict this positive outcome. The aim of this study is to look for prognostic indicators that can predict a positive outcome after multidisciplinary orofacial treatment in patients with ST.

Methods

Patients were included when they were diagnosed with temporomandibular-related ST and received a maximum of 18 sessions of orofacial treatment during a 9-week program. Predictors for positive treatment outcome were identified using univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses with the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ) and the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) as dependent variables.

Results

The results of 101 patients were included in the analysis. Immediately after multidisciplinary orofacial treatment, a clinically relevant decrease in TQ score was significantly associated with “shorter duration of tinnitus” [odds ratio (OR) 0.99], “higher initial score on the TQ somatic subscale” (OR 1.52), and “painful palpation of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ)” (OR 2.46). After 9 weeks of follow-up, the “higher initial score on the TQ somatic subscale” remained as the sole predictor (OR 1.44). A clinically relevant decrease on TFI after 9 weeks of follow-up was predicted by “female gender” (OR 2.70), “younger age” (OR 0.96), “shorter duration of the tinnitus” (OR 0.99), “lower pressure pain thresholds (PPT) on TMJ” (OR 0.99), “lower PPT on sternocleidomastoid origin” (OR 0.99), and “better speech in noise perception” (OR 0.88). A multivariate model comprising “shorter duration of tinnitus” and “higher initial score on the somatic subscale of the TQ” correctly predicts the clinically relevant decrease in TQ score after treatment in 68.5%. A second multivariate model comprising “female gender,” “younger age,” and “shorter duration of the tinnitus” correctly predicts a clinically significant decrease on TFI after follow-up in 68.1%.

Conclusion

We were able to identify various prognostic indicators. “Younger female patients” with a “shorter duration of tinnitus” and a “higher initial score on the TQ somatic subscale” appear to have the best prognosis after multimodal orofacial therapy.

Sex Differences in the Response to Different Tinnitus Treatment

Introduction

Tinnitus is a complex symptom requiring a thorough multidisciplinary assessment to construct an individual’s tinnitus profile. The Antwerp University Hospital hosts a tertiary tinnitus clinic providing intensive, multidisciplinary tinnitus care in the form of combinational psychological treatment with either Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT)/Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or TRT/eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy (EMDR), high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS), and physical therapy treatment (in cases of somatic influence of the neck or the temporomandibular area). Several factors may contribute to therapy effect of which the role of gender has recently gained more interest. As such, the current manuscript explores gender differences in the outcome of different tinnitus treatments.

Methods

Data on treatment outcome of four distinct tinnitus treatments (1. HD-tDCS; 2. orofacial physical therapy; 3. combination TRT + CBT; and 4. combination TRT + EMDR) were pooled and compared. Treatment outcome was assessed via the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI). Participants completed the TFI at baseline, immediately after treatment and after 9 weeks (±3 weeks) follow-up. To explore the effect of gender on different treatment outcomes, a linear mixed model was designed including Time point, Gender, and Therapy Group as fixed factors as well as all interactions between these factors.

Results

TFI scores improved significantly over time regardless of therapy group (p < 0.0001). A mean TFI decrease of at least 13 points was obtained by all participants except by those in the HD-tDCS. Significant interactions between Gender and Time point were identified in all groups except for the TRT +EMDR group. Female subjects improved more extensively than males in the HD-tDCS (p = 0.0009) and orofacial therapy group (p = 0.0299). Contrarily, in the TRT +CBT group, male participants showed a significant improvement whereas the mean TFI scores of female subjects remained on baseline levels (p = 0.0138).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that male and female tinnitus patients seem to react differently to different therapy options. We strongly encourage further prospective studies to discern the relevance of gender in therapy outcome.

Effectiveness of Kinesio taping in the treatment of somatosensory tinnitus: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The clinical effects of Kinesio taping (KT) for somatosensory tinnitus have not been confirmed. The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of KT applied to the sternocleidomastoid, upper trapezius, and levator scapulae muscles for somatosensory tinnitus associated with neck complaints.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-patients were randomly assigned to the KT group (n = 15) and the sham-taping (ST) group (n = 15). Tinnitus-severity was measured using a visual analog scale (tinnitus-VAS) as a primary outcome. Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), cervical pain-VAS, and neck disability index (NDI) were used for the assessments of tinnitus handicap, neck pain, and disability.

RESULTS

Tinnitus-VAS, THI, cervical pain-VAS, and NDI improved significantly in the KT group after the intervention (all P ≤ 0.001). In the ST group, no significant differences in outcome measures were found in the fourth-week.

CONCLUSION

KT is more effective than sham-taping in improving somatosensory tinnitus associated with neck complaints.

Risks of tinnitus, sensorineural hearing impairment, and sudden deafness in patients with non-migraine headache

Tinnitus and hearing impairment are prevalent among headache patients. This study aims to investigate the risk of tinnitus, sensorineural hearing impairment, and sudden deafness in patients with non-migraine headache. Participants included 43 294 patients with non-migraine headache (non-migraine headache cohort) and 173 176 patients with no headache of any type (control cohort) frequency-matched with respect to 10-year age interval and sex from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2005 of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. The mean age of the non-migraine headache cohort was 28.4 ± 14.9 years, and 58.5% of this cohort was male. The incidence rates of tinnitus, sensorineural hearing impairment, and sudden deafness were compared between cohorts using the Kaplan–Meier method with the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to examine the association of tinnitus, sensorineural hearing impairment, and sudden deafness with non-migraine headache, with adjustment for all covariates. The combined risk of either tinnitus, sensorineural hearing impairment, or sudden deafness was higher in the non-migraine headache cohort than in the control cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aHR], 2.73; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.62–2.84; p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in the non-migraine headache cohort were at significantly higher risk of developing tinnitus (aHR, 3.05; 95% CI, 2.91–3.19; p < 0.0001), sensorineural hearing impairment (aHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.74–2.05; p < 0.0001), and sudden deafness (aHR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.77–2.59; p < 0.0001) than were controls. In this population-based study, the risks of tinnitus, sensorineural hearing impairment, and sudden deafness were found to be significantly higher in patients with non-migraine headache than in those without headache.

Diagnostic Criteria for Somatosensory Tinnitus: A Delphi Process and Face-to-Face Meeting to Establish Consensus

Since somatic or somatosensory tinnitus (ST) was first described as a subtype of subjective tinnitus, where altered somatosensory afference from the cervical spine or temporomandibular area causes or changes a patient’s tinnitus perception, several studies in humans and animals have provided a neurophysiological explanation for this type of tinnitus. Due to a lack of unambiguous clinical tests, many authors and clinicians use their own criteria for diagnosing ST. This resulted in large differences in prevalence figures in different studies and limits the comparison of clinical trials on ST treatment. This study aimed to reach an international consensus on diagnostic criteria for ST among experts, scientists and clinicians using a Delphi survey and face-to-face consensus meeting strategy. Following recommended procedures to gain expert consensus, a two-round Delphi survey was delivered online, followed by an in-person consensus meeting. Experts agreed upon a set of criteria that strongly suggest ST. These criteria comprise items on somatosensory modulation, specific tinnitus characteristics, and symptoms that can accompany the tinnitus. None of these criteria have to be present in every single patient with ST, but in case they are present, they strongly suggest the presence of ST. Because of the international nature of the survey, we expect these criteria to gain wide acceptance in the research field and to serve as a guideline for clinicians across all disciplines. Criteria developed in this consensus paper should now allow further investigation of the extent of somatosensory influence in individual tinnitus patients and tinnitus populations.

Conservative therapy for the treatment of patients with somatic tinnitus attributed to temporomandibular dysfunction: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tinnitus is a highly prevalent symptom affecting 10-15% of the adult population. It often affects patient quality of life and frequently causes distress. When subjective tinnitus can be elicited by the somatosensory system of the cervical spine or temporomandibular area it is termed somatic tinnitus. The first aim of the current study is to investigate the effect of the best evidence conservative temporomandibular disorder (TMD) treatment on tinnitus in patients with co-existence of tinnitus and TMD or oral parafunctions compared to no treatment. The second aim is to identify a subgroup of patients with tinnitus that benefits from the conservative temporomandibular joint treatment.

METHODS AND DESIGN

This study is a randomised controlled trial with a delayed treatment design. Patients with a TMD (TMD pain screener ≥ 3 points) or oral parafunctions (such as clenching and bruxism), who are suffering from moderate to severe subjective tinnitus (Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) between 25 and 90 points), will be recruited from the tertiary tinnitus clinic of the University Hospital of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. Patients will be excluded in case of clear otological or neurological causes of the tinnitus, progressive middle ear pathology, intracranial pathology, traumatic cervical spine or temporomandibular injury in the past 6 months, severe depression as diagnosed by a psychologist, tumours, previous surgery in the orofacial area, substance abuse that may affect the outcome measures, any contra-indication for physical therapy treatment directed to the orofacial area or when they received TMD treatment in the past 2 months. After screening for eligibility, baseline data among which scores on the TFI, tinnitus questionnaire (TQ), mean tinnitus loudness as measured with visual analogue scale (VAS), TMD pain screener, and a set of temporomandibular joint tests will be collected. Patients will be randomised in an early-start group and in a delayed-start group of therapy by 9 weeks. Patients will receive conservative TMD treatment with a maximum of 18 sessions within 9 weeks. At baseline (week 0), at the start of therapy (weeks 0 or 9), 9 weeks after therapy (weeks 9 or 18), and at follow-up (weeks 18 or 27) data from the TFI, TQ, VAS mean tinnitus loudness and the TMD pain screener will be collected.

DISCUSSION

Herein, we aim to improve the quality of care for patients with tinnitus attributed to TMD or oral parafunctions. By evaluating the effect of state-of-the-art TMD treatment on tinnitus complaints, we can investigate the usefulness of TMD treatment in patients with somatic tinnitus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

3 July 2017, version 1 of the protocol, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03209297 .