Comparison of Pure-Tone Audiometry Analysis in Sudden Hearing Loss Studies: Lack of Agreement for Different Outcome Measures

[Role of intratympanic glucocorticoid treatment in sudden hearing loss]

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is one of the most common diseases in otolaryngology. Its etiology remains unknown. Furthermore, there is only a low level of evidence for the efficacy of established treatment modalities. In addition to systemic glucocorticoids, intratympanic corticosteroid treatment (ICT) has become increasingly important for treatment of ISSNHL. Different application strategies and treatment regimens have been described; however, uniform standards do not yet exist. ICT may be used for primary treatment as well as salvage therapy. Current data from meta-analyses show no benefit of intratympanic versus systemic primary therapy for sudden hearing loss (moderate evidence) but suggest a benefit of intratympanic secondary treatment over no treatment or placebo (high effect size, low evidence). Regarding combination of systemic and local glucocorticoid therapy in primary treatment of hearing loss, there may be a small benefit over systemic treatment alone (low effect size, low evidence).

High-Dose Glucocorticoids for the Treatment of Sudden Hearing Loss

BACKGROUND: Systemic glucocorticoids are commonly used for primary therapy of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL). However, the comparative effectiveness and risk profiles of high-dose over lower-dose regimens remain unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with sudden hearing loss of greater than or equal to 50 dB within 7 days from onset to receive either 5 days of high-dose intravenous prednisolone at 250 mg/d (HD-Pred), 5 days of high-dose oral dexamethasone at 40 mg/d (HD-Dex), or, as a control, 5 days of oral prednisolone (Pred-Control) at 60 mg/d followed by 5 days of tapering doses. The primary outcome was the change in hearing threshold (pure tone average) in the three most affected contiguous frequencies from baseline to day 30. Secondary outcomes included speech understanding, tinnitus, communication competence, quality of life, hypertension, and insulin resistance. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients were randomly assigned. Mean change in 3PTAmost affected hearing threshold from baseline to 30 days was 34.2 dB (95% CI, 28.4 to 40.0) in the HD-Pred group, 41.4 dB (95% CI, 35.6 to 47.2) in the HD-Dex group, and 41.0 dB (95% CI, 35.2 to 46.8) in the Pred-Control group (P=0.09 for analysis of variance). There were more adverse events related to trial medication in the HD-Pred (n=73) and HD-Dex (n=76) groups than in the Pred-Control group (n=46). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic high-dose glucocorticoid therapy was not superior to a lower-dose regimen in patients with ISSNHL, and it was associated with a higher risk of side effects. (Funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research [BMBF]; EudraCT number, 2015‐002602‐36.)

N-Acetylcysteine combined with prednisolone treatment shows better hearing outcome than treatment with prednisolone alone for patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

Internationally, corticosteroids are still the mainstay treatment for patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL). This is a retrospective monocentric study investing the impact of adding N-acetylcysteine (NAC) to prednisolone treatment on patients with ISSHL at a tertiary university otorhinolaryngology department.

METHODS

793 patients (median age 60 years; 50.9% women) with a new diagnosis of ISSHL from 2009 to 2015 were included in the study. 663 patients received NAC administration in addition to standard tapered prednisolone treatment. Univariate and multivariable analysis were performed to identify independent factors regarding negative prognosis of hearing recovery.

RESULTS

Mean initial ISSHL and hearing gain after treatment in 10-tone pure tone audiometry (PTA) were 54.8 ± 34.5 dB and 15.2 ± 21.2 dB, respectively. In univariate analysis, treatment with prednisolone and NAC was associated with a positive prognosis of hearing recovery in the Japan classification in 10-tone PTA. In multivariable analysis on Japan classification in 10-tone PTA including all significant factors from univariate analysis, negative prognosis of hearing recovery were age > median (odds ratio [OR] 1.648; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.139-2.385; p = 0.008), diseased opposite ear (OR 3.049; CI 2.157-4.310; p < 0.001), pantonal ISSHL (OR 1.891; CI 1.309-2.732; p = 0.001) and prednisolone alone without NAC treatment (OR 1.862; CI 1.200-2.887; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Prednisolone treatment combined with NAC resulted in better hearing outcomes in patients with ISSHL than treatment without NAC.

Efficacy of high dose systemic versus combined (systemic and intratympanic) corticosteroid therapy in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A prospective randomized trial and risk factor analysis

The pathophysiology and the proper treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) are an ongoing subject of debate. Locally or systemic administered corticosteroids are the most accepted drugs of treatment in reference to ISSNHL (idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss), however, no strong evidence nor guidelines regarding their effectiveness yet exists. In our prospective, randomized, controlled trial 78 participants were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned based on the day of admission to two groups according to treatment: group SS (n = 43) received intravenous systemic methylprednisolone alone, and group CT (n = 35) received intratympanic dexamethasone + systemic methylprednisolone. The primary outcome was to compare the hearing outcomes between the treatment groups based on different, widely accepted categories (Siegel, Kanzaki, modified Siegel and PTA4 gain). In consideration of the secondary outcome, we examined the effect of the various risk factors on the hearing improvement. No differences were detected regarding hearing improvement between the two groups, based on any criteria [Siegel's criteria (p = 0.604); Kanzaki's criteria (p = 0.720); modified Siegel's criteria (p = 0.524) and PTA 4 gain (p = 0.569)]. However, several clinical factors such as vertigo (p = 0.039), or cardiovascular comorbidity (p = 0.02) and the severity of initial hearing loss (p = 0.033) were found to bear a significant impact upon the hearing outcome. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial comparing high dose systemic and combination corticosteroid therapy in ISSNHL patients. Our findings suggest coexisting cardiovascular comorbidity, vertigo and severity of the initial hearing loss may bear a significantly higher impact upon hearing improvement, than the additional intratympanic steroid administration. The presented trial was registered in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (name: Combinated systemic and intratympanic steroid therapy in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, No.: 2017-000658-20) and with the ethical approval of The National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition (OGYÉI) (protocol No.: 7621, on 2017.02.16.).

Evaluating the hearing screening effectiveness of active noise cancellation technology among young adults: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The population of young adults who are hearing impaired increases yearly, and a device that enables convenient hearing screening could help monitor their hearing. However, background noise is a critical issue that limits the capabilities of such a device. Therefore, this study evaluated the effectiveness of commercial active noise cancellation (ANC) headphones for hearing screening applications in the presence of background noise. In particular, six confounders were used for a comprehensive evaluation.

METHODS

We enrolled 12 young adults (a total of 23 ears with normal hearing) to participate in this study. A cross-sectional self-controlled study was conducted to explore the effectiveness of hearing screening in the presence of background noise, with a total of 240 test conditions (=3 ANC models × 2 ANC function statuses × 2 noise types × 5 noise levels × 4 frequencies) for each test ear. Subsequently, a linear regression model was used to prove the effectiveness of ANC headphones for hearing screening applications in the presence of background noise with six confounders.

RESULTS

The experimental results showed that, on average, the ANC function of headphones can improve the effectiveness of hearing screening tasks in the presence of background noise. Specifically, the statistical analysis showed that the ANC function enabled a significant 10% improvement ( p < 0.001) compared with no ANC function.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the effectiveness of ANC headphones for young adult hearing screening applications in the presence of background noise. Furthermore, the statistical results confirmed that as confounding variables, noise type, noise level, hearing screening frequency, ANC headphone model, and sex all affect the effectiveness of the ANC function. These findings suggest that ANC is a potential means of helping users obtain high-accuracy hearing screening results in the presence of background noise. Moreover, we present possible directions of development for ANC headphones in future studies.

The impact of eustachian tube function on intra-tympanic steroid administration

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the impact of eustachian tube (ET) function (ETF) on therapeutic success on candidates for intra-tympanic administration of steroids (ITAoS), due to idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL).

METHODS

Medical chart review in two university-affiliated medical centers was performed. Included were consecutive adult patients diagnosed with unilateral ISSNHL between 2012 and 2019 who were treated with ITAoS due to incomplete or no recovery following systemic steroidal therapy. ETF was assessed by means tympanometry, before the initiation of ITAoS. The cohort was divided into an ET dysfunction group (ETD(+)) and a functioning ET group (control: ETD(-)). The audiologic response to treatment was recorded at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 64 suitable patients [median (interquartile, IQR) age 49 (38-63) years] were enrolled. The ETD(+) group included 20 patients and the remaining 44 patients served as controls. Demographic and clinical parameters were not significantly different between the two groups at presentation. Hearing thresholds were improved significantly better, at frequencies 250, 500, 1, 2, 4, and 8 kHz (p = 0.001-0.040) in the ETD(+) group.

CONCLUSION

ETD(+) is associated with better efficacy of ITAoS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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.

Efficacy and safety of systemic, high-dose glucocorticoid therapy for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss : Study protocol for a three-armed, randomized, triple-blind, multicenter trial (HODOKORT)

BACKGROUND

Systemic glucocorticosteroids ("steroids") are widely used worldwide as a standard of care for primary therapy of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL). The German ISSHL guideline recommends high-dose steroids without evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and refers solely to retrospective cohort studies. This RCT aims to assess the efficacy (improvement in hearing) and safety (especially systemic side effects) of high-dose steroids versus standard of care (standard dose systemic steroids) for the treatment of unilateral ISSHL, when given as a primary therapy.

METHODS

The study is designed as a multicenter (approximately 40 centers), randomized, triple-blind, three-armed, parallel group, clinical trial with 312 adult patients. The interventions consist of 5 days of 250 mg/day intravenous prednisolone (intervention 1) + oral placebo, or 5 days of 40 mg/day oral dexamethasone (intervention 2) + intravenous placebo. The control intervention consists of 60 mg oral prednisolone for 5 days followed by five tapering doses + intravenous placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint is the change in hearing threshold in the three most affected contiguous frequencies between 0.25 and 8 kHz 1 month after ISSHL. Secondary endpoints include further measures of hearing improvement including speech audiometry, tinnitus, quality of life, blood pressure, and altered glucose tolerance.

DISCUSSION

There is an unmet medical need for an effective medical therapy of ISSHL. Although sensorineural hearing impairment can be partially compensated by hearing aids or cochlear implants (CI), generic hearing is better than using hearing aids or CIs. Since adverse effects of a short course of high-dose systemic corticosteroids have not been documented with good evidence, the trial will improve knowledge on possible side effects in the different treatment arms with a focus on hyperglycemia and hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) Nr. 2015-002602-36; Sponsor code: KKSH-127.

It's all about timing, early treatment with hyperbaric oxygen therapy and corticosteroids is essential in acute acoustic trauma

Background

Acute acoustic trauma (AAT) is an acute hearing impairment caused by intense noise-impact. The current management strategy for AAT with substantial hearing loss in the Dutch military is the combination therapy with corticosteroids and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). In a previous study, early initiation of the combination therapy was associated with better outcomes. Therefore, we performed a new analysis to assess the difference in hearing outcome between patients in whom combination therapy was started within two days, versus after more than two days.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on military patients diagnosed with AAT with substantial hearing loss who presented between February 2018 and March 2020. Absolute and relative hearing improvement between first and last audiograms were calculated for all affected frequencies (defined as loss of ≥20 dB on initial audiogram). We also determined the amount of patients who recovered to the level of Dutch military requirement, and performed speech discrimination tests.

Results

In this analysis, 30 male patients (49 ears) with AAT were included. The median age was 24.5 years (IQR 23-29). The median time to initiation of therapy with corticosteroids and HBOT were one and two days, respectively. HBOT was started within two days in 31 ears, and after more than two days in 18 ears. The mean absolute and relative hearing gains were 18.8 dB (SD 14.6) and 46.8% (SD 31.3) on all affected frequencies. The 100% discrimination/speech perception level improved from 64.0 dB to 51.7 dB (gain 12.3 dB ± 14.1). There was significantly more improvement in absolute and relative hearing improvement when HBOT was started in ≤2 days, compared to >2 days.

Conclusion

Our analysis shows results in favor of early initiation (≤2 days) of the combination treatment of HBOT and corticosteroids in patients with AAT.

Patients with non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss show hearing improvement more often than patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Introduction

To compare inpatient treated patients with idiopathic (ISSNHL) and non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (NISSNHL) regarding frequency, hearing loss, treatment and outcome.

Methods

All 574 inpatient patients (51% male, median age: 60 years) with ISSNHL and NISSNHL, who were treated in federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012, were included retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.

Results

ISSNHL was diagnosed in 490 patients (85%), NISSNHL in 84 patients (15%). 49% of these cases had hearing loss due to acute otitis media, 37% through varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease, 10% through Menière disease and 7% due to other reasons. Patients with ISSNHL and NISSNHL showed no difference between age, gender, side of hearing loss, presence of tinnitus or vertigo and their comorbidities. 45% of patients with ISSNHL and 62% with NISSNHL had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment (p < 0.001). The mean interval between onset of hearing loss to inpatient treatment was shorter in ISSNHL (7.7 days) than in NISSNHL (8.9 days; p = 0.02). The initial hearing loss of the three most affected frequencies in pure-tone average (3PTAmax) scaled 72.9 dBHL ± 31.3 dBHL in ISSNHL and 67.4 dBHL ± 30.5 dBHL in NISSNHL. In the case of acute otitis media, 3PTAmax (59.7 dBHL ± 24.6 dBHL) was lower than in the case of varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease (80.11 dBHL ± 34.19 dBHL; p = 0.015). Mean absolute hearing gain (Δ3PTAmax_abs) was 8.1 dB ± 18.8 dB in patients with ISSNHL, and not different in NISSNHL patients with 10.2 dB ± 17.6 dB. A Δ3PTAmax_abs ≥ 10 dB was reached in 34.3% of the patients with ISSNHL and to a significantly higher rate of 48.8% in NISSNHL patients (p = 0.011).

Conclusions

ISSNHL and NISSNHL show no relevant baseline differences. ISSNHL tends to have a higher initial hearing loss. NISSHNL shows a better outcome than ISSNHL.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00405-021-06691-y.

[Hearing classification in patients with vestibular schwannoma using German-language test procedures]

BACKGROUND

Hearing function in patients with vestibular schwannoma is often classified according to the Gardner and Robertson (1988) or the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS, 1995) systems. These classification systems are based on English-language test procedures, there is no German-language equivalent. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of various target parameters on hearing classification and to derive a recommendation for the use of German-language test methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The rules for speech audiometry based on English-language test procedures were applied to German speech test materials. In 91 patients with vestibular schwannoma, pure tone hearing thresholds, speech recognition thresholds, and speech discrimination at different sound pressure levels were measured. The patients were categorized according to the Gardner and Robertson and AAO-HNS classifications.

RESULTS

In both the Gardner-Robertson and the AAO-HNS classifications, the number of patients in the hearing classes with serviceable hearing function (measured as Pure Tone Average across three (3PTA) or four (4PTA) frequencies) was highest when using the 3PTA_{0,5;1;2 kHz} condition, followed by 4PTA_{0,5;1;2;3 kHz}, 4PTA_{0,5;1;2;4 kHz}, and 4PTA_{0,5;1;2;"3"kHz}. If maximum word recognition score (WRS_max) was used instead of word recognition 40 dB above the sensation level (WRS_40SL), more patients were classified into the hearing classes with serviceable hearing function, irrespective of the mean pure tone hearing threshold.

CONCLUSION

The Gardner-Robertson and AAO-HNS classifications can be used in German-speaking settings. The Freiburg monosyllabic test can be used to determine speech discrimination scores or maximum word recognition.

Efficacy and Safety of AM-111 in the Treatment of Acute Unilateral Sudden Deafness-A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Phase 3 Study

Objective:

To confirm the efficacy and safety of AM-111 (brimapitide), a cell-penetrating c-Jun N-terminal Kinase (JNK) inhibitor, in patients suffering from severe to profound acute unilateral idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL).

Study design:

Prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study with follow-up visits on Days 3, 7, 28, and 91.

Setting:

Fifty-one European and Asian sites (tertiary referral centers, private ENT practices).

Patients:

Two hundred fifty-six patients aged 18 to 65 years presenting within 72 hours following ISSNHL onset with mean hearing loss ≥ 40 dB and mean threshold ≥ 60 dB at the 3 worst affected contiguous test frequencies.

Interventions:

Single-dose intratympanic injection of AM-111 (0.4 or 0.8 mg/ml) or placebo; oral prednisolone as reserve therapy if hearing improvement < 10 dB at Day 7.

Main outcome measures:

Hearing improvement to Day 28 was the primary efficacy endpoint; complete hearing recovery, frequency of reserve therapy used, complete tinnitus remission, improvement in word recognition were secondary endpoints. Safety was evaluated by the frequency of clinically relevant hearing deterioration and adverse events.

Results:

While the primary efficacy endpoint was not met in the overall study population, post-hoc analysis showed a clinically relevant and nominally significant treatment effect for AM-111 0.4 mg/ml in patients with profound ISSNHL. The study drug and the administration procedure were well tolerated.

Conclusions:

AM-111 provides effective otoprotection in case of profound ISSNHL. Activation of the JNK stress kinase, AM-111's pharmacologic target, seems to set in only following pronounced acute cochlear injury associated with large hearing threshold shifts.

Hearing Changes After Intratympanic Steroids for Secondary (Salvage) Therapy of Sudden Hearing Loss: A Meta-Analysis Using Mathematical Simulations of Drug Delivery Protocols

OBJECTIVE

The use of glucocorticoids for secondary (salvage/rescue) therapy of idiopathic sudden hearing loss (ISSHL), including controlled and uncontrolled studies with intratympanic injections or continuous, catheter mediated applications, were evaluated by means of a meta-analysis in an attempt to define optimal local drug delivery protocols for ISSHL.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 30 studies with 33 treatment groups between January 2000 and June 2014 were selected based on sufficiently detailed description of application protocols. Cochlear drug levels were calculated by a validated computer model of drug dispersion in the inner ear fluids based on the concentration and volume of glucocorticoids applied, the time drug remained in the middle ear, and on the specific timing of injections. Various factors were compared with hearing outcome, including baseline data, individual parameters of the application protocols, calculated peak concentration (Cmax), and total dose (area under the curve, AUC).

RESULTS

There was no dependence of hearing outcome on individual parameters of the application protocol, Cmax or AUC. Hearing gain and final hearing thresholds were independent of treatment delay.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available data from uncontrolled and controlled randomized and non-randomized studies no clear recommendation can be made so far for a specific application protocol for either primary or secondary (salvage) intratympanic steroid treatment in patients with ISSHL. For meta-analyses, change in pure tone average (PTA) may not be an adequate outcome parameter to assess effectiveness of the intervention especially with inhomogeneity of patient populations. Final PTA might provide a better outcome parameter.

[Pitfalls in the statistical world]

Mistakes in the acquisition, evaluation, analysis and reporting of data often occur because there is a lack of awareness of the methodological problem. They can have far-reaching consequences for the reception of results of scientific primary studies and therefore for the clinical practice and healthcare. This article aims at raising awareness for a responsible handling of study data and for avoiding questionable or incorrect practices. It presents some examples of statistical pitfalls in empirical research practice, which increase the probability of false positive results and shows possibilities to avoid such risks.

The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in acute hearing loss: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Acute hearing loss can have a major impact on a patient's life. This holds true for both acute acoustic trauma (AAT) and idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL), two devastating conditions for which no highly effective treatment options exist. This narrative review provides the rationale and evidence for HBOT in AAT and ISSHL.

METHODS

Narrative review of all the literature available on HBOT in acute hearing loss, studies were retrieved from systematic searches on PubMed and by cross referencing.

DISCUSSION

First, the etiological mechanisms of acute hearing loss and the mechanism of action of HBOT were discussed. Furthermore, we have provided an overview of 68 studies that clinically investigated the effect of HBOT in the last couple of decades. For future studies, it is recommend to start as early as possible with therapy, preferably within 48 h and to use combination therapy consisting of HBOT and corticosteroids.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

HBOT has been used quite extensively for acute hearing loss in the last couple of decades. Based on the amount of studies showing a positive effect, HBOT should be discussed with patients (shared decision making) as optional therapy in case of AAT and ISSHL.

Effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy and corticosteroid therapy in military personnel with acute acoustic trauma

Introduction

Acute acoustic trauma (AAT) is a sensorineural hearing impairment due to exposure to an intense impulse noise which causes cochlear hypoxia. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) could provide an adequate oxygen supply. The aim was to investigate the effectiveness of early treatment with combined HBO and corticosteroid therapy in patients with AAT compared with corticosteroid monotherapy.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed on military personnel diagnosed with AAT between November 2012 and December 2017. Inclusion criteria for HBO therapy were hearing loss of 30 dB or greater on at least one, 25 dB or more on at least two, or 20 dB or more on three or more frequencies as compared with the contralateral ear.

Results

Absolute hearing improvements showed significant differences (independent t-test) between patients receiving HBO and the control group at 500 Hz (p=0.014), 3000 Hz (p=0.023), 4000 Hz (p=0.001) and 6000 Hz (p=0.01) and at the mean of all frequencies (p=0.002). Relative hearing improvements were significantly different (independent t-test) at 4000 Hz (p=0.046) and 6000 Hz (p=0.013) and at all frequencies combined (p=0.005). Furthermore, the percentage of patients with recovery to the functional level required by the Dutch Armed Forces (clinical outcome score) was higher in the HBO group.

Conclusions

Early-stage combination therapy for patients with AAT was associated with better audiometric results at higher frequencies and better clinical outcome score.

Intratympanic steroid use for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: current otolaryngology practice in Germany and Austria

AIMS

The frequency of the use of intratympanic steroids (ITS) as a treatment for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) in Europe is still unknown and remains a contentious issue amongst otolaryngologists. We undertook a survey of otolaryngologists in Germany and Austria to establish if there is any professional consensus with which to form a protocol for its use.

METHODS

A survey of 21 questions was distributed electronically to otolaryngologists in Germany and Austria and data on demographics, indications for intratympanic treatment, procedure, follow-up, and outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

We received 908 responses. 49.1% of otolaryngologists used ITS for ISSNHL. Of those otolaryngologists who use ITS, 73.7% do not use it as primary treatment. 20.6% use ITS in conjunction with oral steroids for primary treatment and only 5.8% use ITS as monotherapy for primary treatment. 90.5% use ITS as salvage therapy. 81.1% do not consider the use of ITS after 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms. 8.3% used a tympanostomy tube and while the most commonly used steroid was dexamethasone at a concentration of 4 mg/ml (61%), a wide variety or other steroids and concentrations were used.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey illustrates wide variation of current practice of intratympanic corticosteroid injection for ISSHL in Germany and Austria. In the absence of high-level evidence, knowing what current practice is allows clinicians to assess what they do against what their colleagues are doing, and if they do something very different, make them question their practice. Moreover, the obtained data will help to direct future clinical trials with the aim to compare the outcomes of more commonly used protocols.

Diagnostics and therapy of sudden hearing loss

This article reviews recent aspects of diagnostics, differential diagnostics, and evidence in systemic and local therapy of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL). Since a number of disorders can be accompanied by sudden hearing loss, a meaningful and targeted diagnostic strategy is of utmost importance. An important differential diagnosis of sudden hearing loss are intralabyrinthine schwannomas (ILS). The incidence of ILS is probably significantly underestimated. This may be due to the lack of awareness or lack of explicit search for an intralabyrinthine tumor on MRI or an inappropriate MRI technique for the evaluation of sudden hearing loss ("head MRI" instead of "temporal bone MRI" with too high slice thicknesses). Therefore, the request to the radiologist should specifically include the question for (or exclusion of) an ILS. With special MRI techniques, it is possibly today to visualize an endolymphatic hydrops. The evidence in the therapy of ISSHL is - with respect to the quality and not quantity of studies - unsatisfying. The value of systemically (low dose) or intratympanically applied corticosteroids in the primary treatment of ISSHL is still unclear. In order to investigate the efficacy and safety of high dose corticosteroids as primary therapy for ISSHL, a national, multicenter, three-armed, randomized, triple-blind controlled clinical trial is currently performed in Germany (http://hodokort-studie.hno.org/). After insufficient recovery of the threshold with systemic therapy of ISSHL, intratympanic corticosteroid therapy appears to be associated with a significantly higher chance of an improved hearing threshold than no therapy or placebo. Both, hearing gain and final hearing threshold, however, appear to be independent from the onset of secondary therapy. Based on currently available data from clinical studies, no recommendation can be made with respect to the type of corticosteroid and specifics of the intratympanic application protocol.

Inpatient treatment of patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a population-based healthcare research study

PURPOSE

The aim was to determine inpatient treatment rates of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) with focus on diagnostics, treatment, and outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based study in the federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012 was performed on all 490 inpatients (51% females, median age: 60 years) treated for ISSNHL (Median duration: 7 days). The association between analyzed parameters and the probability of recovery was tested using univariable and multivariable statistics.

RESULTS

The inpatient treatment rate for ISSNHL was 11.23 per 100,000. 172 patients (35%) had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment. For pure-tone audiometry of the three most affected frequencies (3PTAmax), the initial median hearing loss was 66.67 dB, the median absolute hearing gain ΔPTA_abs was 10.0 dB, and the median relative hearing gain in relation with the contralateral side ΔPTA_{rel contral} was 30.86%. 51% of the patients reached a ΔPTA_abs of ≥ 10 dB. About 2 of 5 patients recovered to a ΔPTA_{rel contral} ≥ 50% or reached ≤ 10 dB of contralateral ear. The multivariate analysis revealed that an ISSNHL on the left side [Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.6.88; confidence interval (CI) = 1.161-2.454], no down-sloping audiogram type (HR = 2.016; CI = 1.391-2.921), and no prior outpatient prednisolone treatment (HR = 2.374; CI = 1.505-3.745) were independent factors associated with better recovery (ΔPTA_abs ≥ 10 dB).

CONCLUSION

Inpatient treatment of ISSNHL is variable in daily practice. The population-based recovery rate was worse than reported in clinical trials. More standardization and clearer criteria for outpatient, inpatient, and salvage therapy are needed.

[Speech audiometric outcome parameters in clinical trials on hearing improvement]

BACKGROUND

When comparing clinical studies nationally and internationally, there is great heterogeneity in the applied audiometric outcome parameters. Beside different frequencies included in pure-tone audiometry and the resulting averages, the word recognition scores are measured at varying sound pressure levels, i.e., either with a fixed sound pressure level or with a fixed sensation level. However, a comparison of studies, e. g., in meta-analysis, requires comparable outcome parameters.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the influence of speech-audiometric outcome parameters on the outcome reporting of hearing therapies is studied.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Before and after a conservative or a surgical treatment aimed at hearing improvement, 25 patients with hearing impairment were tested with the German Freiburg speech intelligibility test with monosyllables and numbers at various levels, and with the German Oldenburg sentence test in quiet. Additionally, 49 subjects with normal hearing were tested.

RESULTS

In a comparison of measurement methods (outcome parameters), the hearing improvement measured using constant sound pressure levels for speech audiometry was significantly greater and therefore more sensitive than using constant sensation levels.

CONCLUSION

To test changes in hearing in clinical studies, fixed sound pressure levels should be preferred to fixed sensation levels. For the development of standardized outcome parameters for measuring speech intelligibility in quiet, fixed sound pressure levels or measurement of speech reception thresholds should be selected.

Characteristics and Spontaneous Recovery of Tinnitus Related to Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Objective:

To evaluate the characteristics and spontaneous recovery of tinnitus related to idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL).

Study Design:

Retrospective analysis from two randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials for treatment of ISSNHL within 48 hours from onset (Study A), or of tinnitus related to ISSNHL within 3 months from onset (Study B).

Setting:

Forty-eight European sites (academic tertiary referral centers, private ENT practices).

Patients:

One hundred thirteen adult patients of which 65 with hearing loss ≥30 dB (Study A) and 48 with persistent acute tinnitus (Study B) at baseline.

Interventions:

Intratympanic (i.t.) injection of placebo gel in single dose or in triple dose during 3 consecutive days.

Main Outcome Measures:

Frequency of tinnitus, subjective tinnitus loudness, rates of complete tinnitus remission, and complete hearing recovery during 3 months follow-up.

Results:

In acute ISSNHL, tinnitus loudness decreased rapidly in cases of mild-moderate hearing loss, and tinnitus had completely resolved in two-thirds of patients after 3 months. Hearing recovery preceded tinnitus resolution. When associated with severe-profound hearing loss, tinnitus improved significantly less. Complete hearing recovery and full tinnitus remission were both about three times more frequent in mild-moderate hearing loss patients than in severe-profound cases. Improvement in tinnitus loudness over time can be approximated by a negative exponential function.

Conclusions:

Prognosis for ISSNHL-related tinnitus is relatively poor in case of severe-profound hearing loss and the longer it has persisted. Alleviation or management of tinnitus should be a key therapeutic objective especially in pronounced ISSNHL cases.

Hearing Changes After Intratympanically Applied Steroids for Primary Therapy of Sudden Hearing Loss: A Meta-analysis Using Mathematical Simulations of Drug Delivery Protocols

OBJECTIVE

Controlled and uncontrolled studies with primary intratympanic or combined intratympanic and systemic application of glucocorticosteroids for idiopathic sudden hearing loss were analyzed by means of a meta-analysis in an attempt to establish optimal local drug delivery protocols.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 25 studies with 28 treatment groups between January 2000 and June 2014 were selected that adequately described drug delivery protocols. Cochlear drug levels were calculated by a validated computer model of drug dispersion in the inner ear fluids based on the concentration and volume of glucocorticoids applied, the time the drug remained in the middle ear, and the specific timing of injections. Various factors were compared with hearing outcome, including baseline data, individual parameters of the application protocols, calculated peak concentration (Cmax), and total dose (area under the curve).

RESULTS

There was no dependence of hearing outcome on individual parameters of the application protocol, Cmax, or area under the curve. Final hearing threshold was notably independent of delay of treatment.

CONCLUSION

During primary intratympanic or combined steroid therapy of idiopathic sudden hearing loss, the tendency toward early treatment having a positive effect on hearing improvement is thought to be a "sham effect," likely related to spontaneous recovery. Change in pure-tone average may not be an adequate outcome parameter to assess effectiveness of the intervention, as it depends on the degree of initial hearing loss. Final pure-tone average provides a better alternative.

A software tool for pure‑tone audiometry. Classification of audiograms for inclusion of patients in clinical trials. English version

Objective

Selecting subjects for clinical trials on hearing loss therapies relies on the patient meeting the audiological inclusion criteria. In studies on the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, the patient’s acute audiogram is usually compared with a previous audiogram, the audiogram of the non-affected ear, or a normal audiogram according to an ISO standard. Generally, many more patients are screened than actually fulfill the particular inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria often require a calculation of pure-tone averages, selection of the most affected frequencies, and calculation of hearing loss differences.

Materials and methods

A software tool was developed to simplify and accelerate this inclusion procedure for investigators to estimate the possible recruitment rate during the planning phase of a clinical trial and during the actual study. This tool is Microsoft Excel-based and easy to modify to meet the particular inclusion criteria of a specific clinical trial. The tool was retrospectively evaluated on 100 patients with acute hearing loss comparing the times for classifying automatically and manually. The study sample comprised 100 patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

Results and conclusion

The age- and sex-related normative audiogram was calculated automatically by the tool and the hearing impairment was graded. The estimated recruitment rate of our sample was quickly calculated. Information about meeting the inclusion criteria was provided instantaneously. A significant reduction of 30 % in the time required for classifying (30 s per patient) was observed.

Supplementary file

Additional material to this article (Rahne_InclusionCriteria_v.en2.1.xlsx) will be available online at 10.1007/s00106-015-0089-3

Controlled release dexamethasone implants in the round window niche for salvage treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and hearing outcome of a biocompatible degradable dexamethasone releasing implant for continuous drug delivery to the round window membrane in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) and insufficient recovery after systemic high dose glucocorticoid therapy.

PATIENTS

Five patients with profound or moderate-to-severe hearing loss after systemic high-dose prednisolone for ISSHL received local salvage therapy with a controlled release dexamethasone implant in the middle ear.

INTERVENTION

Pieces of a sterile rod shaped poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) PLGA polymer matrix containing a total of 0.7 mg dexamethasone, which is approved for intravitreal use were implanted into the round window niche.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Intraoperative handling and feasibility and hearing recovery as measured by change in pure tone threshold, final word recognition score, and categories of improvement were evaluated.

RESULTS

The implants were surgically placed without major difficulties. The mean hearing threshold significantly improved at follow up by 31 ± 31 dB HL (from 94 ± 27 to 63 ± 36 dB HL; p < 0.05). Two of five patients recovered completely. One patient showed partial hearing recovery with serviceable hearing.

CONCLUSION

Although no drugs are currently approved for local therapy of inner ear disorders, there is increasing evidence that intratympanic glucocorticoids are effective as salvage therapy in ISSHL. The present study has shown encouraging results with a biodegradable polymer delivery system, demonstrating the translation of preclinical studies with controlled drug delivery into clinical practice.

Prognostic impact of standard laboratory values on outcome in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Background

Aim of the present study was to evaluate prognostic factors, in particular standard laboratory parameters, for better outcome after idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).

Methods

Using a retrospective review, 173 patients were included presenting between 2006 and 2009 with unilateral SSNHL, ≥30 dB bone conduction in three succeeding frequencies between 0.125 to 8 kHz in pure tone audiometry (PTA), and a time interval between first symptoms and diagnostics ≤ 4 weeks. Hearing gain of <10 dB versus ≥10 dB in the affected ear in 6PTA values was the primary outcome criterion. Univariate and multivariate statistical tests were used to analyze predictors for better outcome.

Results

The initial hearing loss was 50.6 ± 27.2 dB. The absolute hearing gain was 15.6 ± 20.1 dB. Eighty-one patients (47%) had a final hearing gain of ≥10 dB. Low-frequency hearing loss (p <0.0001); start of inpatient treatment <4 days after onset (p = 0.018); first SSNHL (versus recurrent SSNHL, p = 0.001); initial hearing loss ≥ 60 dB (p < 0.0001); an initial quick value lower than the reference values (p = 0.040); and a pretherapeutic hyperfibrinogenemia (p = 0.007) were significantly correlated to better outcome (≥10 dB absolute hearing gain). Multivariate analysis revealed that first SSNHL (p = 0.004), start of treatment <4 days after onset (p = 0.015), initial hearing loss ≥ 60 dB (p = 0.001), and hyperfibrinogenemia (p = 0.032) were independent prognostic factors for better hearing recovery.

Conclusion

Better hearing gain in patients with hyperfibrinogenemia might be explained by the rheological properties of the applied therapy and supports the hypothesis that SSNHL is caused in part by vascular factors.

Long-term prognosis for hearing recovery in stroke patients presenting vertigo and acute hearing loss

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Vertebrobasilar ischemic stroke (VBIS) can cause acute hearing loss (AHL) because the vertebrobasilar system supplies most of the auditory system including the inner ear. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term prognosis of AHL associated with VBIS.

METHODS

Over 12.5 years, 62 patients with AHL of a vascular cause who were followed for at least 1 year (mean, 49.2 months; SD, 24.4 months) were enrolled in this study. Quantitative audiovestibular function testing was performed during the acute (mostly within 10 days after symptom onset) and last follow-up periods in all patients.

RESULTS

On the last follow-up, approximately 65% (39/62) of the patients showed a partial (n=24) or complete (n=15) hearing recovery. All but 2 (97%) patients had acute vertigo and 56 (56/62, 90%) had a unilateral canal paresis to caloric stimulation on the side of the AHL. The most commonly infarcted territory on brain MRI was in the distribution of the anterior inferior cerebellar artery (55/62, 89%). Multivariable analysis showed that multiple risk factors for stroke [odds ratio (OR) 10.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 13.7, p=0.011] and profound hearing loss [OR 3.92, 95% CI 1.03 to 14.97, p<0.046] predicted a poor outcome for recovery of hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute hearing loss associated with posterior circulation ischemic stroke exhibits a relatively good long-term outcome. Two or more risk factors for stroke and profound hearing loss are adverse prognostic factors for recovery of hearing loss of a vascular cause.

Blood levels of TNF-α, IL-10, and IL-12 in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate the blood levels of TNF-α, IL-10, and IL-12 in the idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss patients, and the change of these cytokine levels after treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective clinical trial.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and 20 healthy people were selected as study and control groups. Blood samples for TNF-α, IL-10, and IL-12 were taken before treatment and 6 weeks after treatment. The study group was given combined treatment including dexamethasone, heparin, pentoxifyline, vitamin B1, and B6 for 10 days, and was divided into two groups: treatment responders and treatment nonresponders. The treatment responders group was also divided into three groups according to most accepted criteria for improvement in the literature. Audiograms were taken before treatment and 6 weeks after treatment to determine the response to the treatment.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between pre- and posttreatment values of IL-10 and IL-12 in all study groups (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference between pre- and posttreatment values of TNF-α in treatment responders (P > 0.05). Treatment nonresponders had more elevated posttreatment values of TNF-α than pretreatment values (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

IL-10 and IL-12 may not play a critical role in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. But our data supports the role of TNF-α in the pathophysiology of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, and TNF-α receptor blockers may have benefits in these patients.

[Consensus on diagnosis and treatment of sudden hearing loss. Asociación Madrileña de ORL]

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss is an unexplained unilateral hearing loss with onset over a period of less than 72 hours, without other known otological diseases. We present a consensus on the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of this disease, designed by AMORL, after a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to June 2010. Diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is based on mandatory otoscopy, acoumetry, tonal audiometry, speech audiometry, and tympanometry. After clinical diagnosis is settled, and before treatment is started, a full analysis should be done and an MRI should be requested later. Treatment is based on systemic corticosteroids (orally in most cases), helped by intratympanic doses as rescue after treatment failures. Follow-up should be done at day 7, with tonal and speech audiometries, and regularly at 15, 30, and 90 days after start of therapy, and after 12 months. By consensus, results after treatment should be reported as absolute dBs recovered in pure tonal audiometry, as improvement in the recovery rate in unilateral cases, and as improvement in speech audiometry.

Meta-analysis for the effect of medical therapy vs. placebo on recovery of idiopathic sudden hearing loss

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effect of recovery of idiopathic sudden hearing loss under placebo (first aim) and under medical therapy (second aim).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A total of 1,674 studies published between January 1974 and April 2009 were found following suggestions in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. After filtering by criteria of Cochrane Collaboration, four trials remained for continuous and two for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

Using Review Manager, weighted mean difference as well as standardized mean effect of hearing recovery were calculated and pooled. The values for weighted mean difference of hearing gain in dB were 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-2.04-3.61) and for standardized mean effect 0.06, 95% CI (-0.13-0.24), respectively, which computationally favors active treatment, but statistically is not significantly different from no effect (0 dB). This was in accordance to the comparison of descriptive means between recovery under placebo with 14.3 dB and active treatment with 15.8 dB hearing gain. Treatment effect of dichotomous data (hearing gain vs. no hearing gain) suggested a statistically significant better outcome for active treatment; the odds ratio (OR) [fixed] is 2.18 (1.06-4.46).

CONCLUSIONS

In five different statistical analysis methods used, treatment effect of medical therapy was slightly better than recovery under placebo in which spontaneous recovery could be assumed, but no significant effect was detected. Against the background of recovery under placebo of 14.3 dB vs. 15.8 dB hearing gain of active treatment as averages of all measured frequencies, recovery under placebo seems not to have worse outcome than recovery under medical therapy.

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.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy as salvage treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss: review of rationale and preliminary report

Background:

The management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss has not yet been standardised. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy influences recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss, but the underlying mechanism is unknown and the appropriate indications and protocols undetermined.

Materials and methods:

Nineteen patients affected by sudden sensorineural hearing loss were treated after unsuccessful medical therapy, either in an acute or chronic setting. Pure oxygen inhalation at 2.5 atmospheres absolute pressure was administered for 90 minutes, for 30 sessions. Frequency-specific and average pure tone hearing thresholds were determined before and after hyperbaric oxygen therapy. The number of hyperbaric oxygen therapy sessions, the patient's age and any therapeutic delay were considered as quantitative variables possibly influencing outcome. Stepwise multivariate analysis was performed.

Results:

Salvage hyperbaric oxygen therapy appeared to improve patients' pure tone hearing thresholds, particularly at low frequencies. Positive results were more likely with increased patient age and reduced delay in receiving hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Conclusion:

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy has a strong scientific rationale, and improves pure tone hearing thresholds in cases of sudden sensorineural hearing loss unresponsive to medical therapy. Further research may be able to identify those patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for whom hyperbaric oxygen therapy would be most cost-effective.

Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial on the safety and efficacy of continuous intratympanic dexamethasone delivered via a round window catheter for severe to profound sudden idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss after failure of systemic therapy

OBJECTIVES

To study the safety and efficacy of continuous intratympanic dexamethasone-phosphate (Dex-P) for severe to profound sudden idiopathic sensorineural hearing (ISSHL) or sudden idiopathic anacusis after failure of systemic therapy.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled multicenter trial.

METHODS

Patients with ISSHL and insufficient recovery (mean 4PTA = 97 dB HL) after systemic high dose glucocorticoid therapy received either Dex-P (4 mg/ml) or placebo (NaCl 0.9%) continuously applied for 14 days into the round window niche via a temporarily implanted catheter. For ethical reasons, intratympanic treatment was continued with Dex-P in all patients for another 14 days after the placebo-controlled study period. According to a two-step adaptive study design an interim analysis was performed after inclusion of 23 patients.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis for the primary outcome criterion (4PTA: 0.5-3 kHz) during the placebo controlled study period (14 days) showed an average hearing improvement in the treatment group of 13.9 dB (SD: 21.3) and in the placebo group of 5.4 dB (SD: 10.4). This difference in hearing improvement between the two groups (mean: 8.4 dB, SD: 17.0, 95% CI: -7.1-24.1) was statistically not significant (p = .26). Of the secondary outcome parameters, the largest benefit of local salvage therapy was found for maximum speech discrimination with an improvement of 24.4% (SD: 32.0) in the treatment and 4.5% (SD: 7.6) in the placebo group (p = 0.07). After a 3 month follow-up period (i.e. after all patients received intratympanic Dex-P) hearing improvement in the two groups was very similar. No serious adverse events were observed. Sample size calculation after the interim analysis resulted in stopping of the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The tendency toward better hearing improvement in the treatment group, the rather conservative inclusion criteria, the limited placebo-controlled observation period and the absence of serious adverse events supports further investigation local inner ear drug delivery as a first or second line treatment option for ISSHL.