Intratympanic and Systemic Steroids for Sudden Hearing Loss

Prognostic Significance of Early Posttreatment Audiometry in Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of early posttreatment initiation audiometry findings in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL).

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a single tertiary medical center.

METHODS

A review was conducted on 299 ISSHL patients treated between 2007 and 2023. Patients underwent audiometry on Days 2 to 3 and 5 to 7 posttreatment initiation. Data on demographics, medical history, audiometry results, and prognosis were collected. Prognosis was categorized based on hearing recovery at 1 year postdiagnosis.

RESULTS

Older age, worse initial speech reception threshold (SRT), ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular accidents/transient ischemic attacks, hypertension, and diabetes were associated with a poorer prognosis. Posttreatment initiation audiometry findings on Days 2 to 3 and 5 to 7 significantly correlated with prognosis. Patients with a ≥30% improvement had substantial or complete recovery in over 80% of cases, while those with <10% had <30% recovery. Multivariate analysis identified a significant improvement on days 5 to 7 as an independent predictor of complete recovery (odds ratio = 4.25 [95% confidence interval 1.96-9.23], P = .0002).

CONCLUSION

Posttreatment initiation audiometry findings, particularly on Days 5 to 7, hold significant prognostic value in ISSHL patients. A substantial improvement during this timeframe is strongly associated with favorable outcomes. These findings emphasize the potential of posttreatment initiation audiometry as a valuable tool for clinicians in counseling patients with ISSHL.

Unveiling the Role of Oxidative Stress in Cochlear Hair Cell Death: Prospective Phytochemical Therapeutics against Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Hearing loss represents a multifaceted and pervasive challenge that deeply impacts various aspects of an individual's life, spanning psychological, emotional, social, and economic realms. Understanding the molecular underpinnings that orchestrate hearing loss remains paramount in the quest for effective therapeutic strategies. This review aims to expound upon the physiological, biochemical, and molecular aspects of hearing loss, with a specific focus on its correlation with diabetes. Within this context, phytochemicals have surfaced as prospective contenders in the pursuit of potential adjuvant therapies. These compounds exhibit noteworthy antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, which hold the potential to counteract the detrimental effects induced by oxidative stress and inflammation-prominent contributors to hearing impairment. Furthermore, this review offers an up-to-date exploration of the diverse molecular pathways modulated by these compounds. However, the dynamic landscape of their efficacy warrants recognition as an ongoing investigative topic, inherently contingent upon specific experimental models. Ultimately, to ascertain the genuine potential of phytochemicals as agents in hearing loss treatment, a comprehensive grasp of the molecular mechanisms at play, coupled with rigorous clinical investigations, stands as an imperative quest.

Clinical efficacy of intratympanic steroid injection for treating idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is an emergency that causes permanent hearing loss if timely treatment is not provided. However, the evidence supporting the effect of intratympanic steroid injection (ITSI) starting time on hearing outcome is limited.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 582 patients with ISSNHL who were treated with ITSIs and reviewed their clinical and audiological variables. The relationship between ITSI starting time and hearing recovery was analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean starting time of ITSI was 13.17 ± 16.53 days. The overall hearing recovery rate was 55.15% (recovery = mean hearing level gain of ≥10 dB). The recovery rates were 79.2%, 67.4%, 50%, 36.6%, and 17.8% for the ITSI starting times of 1 to 3, 4 to 7, 8 to 14, 15 to 28, and ≥29 days, respectively. A multivariate analysis revealed that ITST starting time (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, 95% CI, 0.92-0.96, p < 0.001) and salvage therapy (OR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.35-0.86, p = 0.009) were independent poor prognostic factors for patients with ISSNHL.

CONCLUSION

Earlier ITSI treatment is associated with a higher hearing recovery rate. Comorbidities and post-ITSI complications were nonsignificant independent risk factors.

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.).

The effectiveness of intratympanic steroid injection in addition to systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

There is a lot of controversy about the efficacy of intratympanic steroid (ITS) therapy in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL). ITS are reported to have effect on ISSNHL and ITS with additional systemic therapy are also effective. In the primary treatment of ISSHL, achieving the correct diagnosis rapidly is paramount, as early initial treatment greatly increases the chance of hearing recovery. A retrospective study took place from 2010 to 2017 in the 1st ENT Clinic of Athens. Participants were inward patients that were first examined and diagnosed with ISSNHL in the Emergency Department and afterwards admitted in the clinic. In 2014 our Clinic changed the Treating Protocol of ΙSSNHL. We compared the audiological results of the patients treated with the previous protocol (intravenous steroids) with those treated with the new protocol (concurrent intravenous and intratympanic steroids). The main outcome measure was the hearing threshold before treatment and after completion of therapy. We retrieved from the hospital medical records the following demographic and clinical data: sex, age, date of admission, comorbidities, hearing threshold per frequency on admission and on discharge day and time period between onset of symptoms and initial treatment. We concluded that both intratympanic steroids and systemic steroids alone appear equally effective, however the use of both intratympanic and systemic steroids together is likely superior to either used alone. Intratympanic steroids likely offer additional benefit as a secondary/salvage therapy in patients who fail initial systemic steroid therapy.

Intratympanic Dexamethasone in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss can be a frightening experience for the sufferer and needs immediate treatment. Systemic steroid therapy has been the mainstay of treatment of this condition but concerns about their side effects has led to their use by intratympanic injection. We studied the results of intratympanic dexamethasone (IT-Dexa) both as a primary therapy and as salvage treatment after failure of oral steroids. A total of 39 patients of SSNHL were studied prospectively. Of these 23 were given oral steroids. Ten of these showed no response and were treated with IT-Dexa 4 mg/ml twice a week for two weeks. In addition, 16 patients who reported later than two weeks or had concomitant medical disorders like diabetes and/or hypertension were treated with IT-Dexa. While oral steroids showed hearing improvement (≥ 10 dB) in 56.5% patients, the recovery rate was 62.5% and 80% in those treated primarily with IT-Dexa and as salvage therapy respectively. There was a negative correlation of delay in institution of treatment with hearing recovery. Conclusion: intratympanic dexamethasone is a safe and effective treatment and should be offered to patients as a primary treatment modality and also as salvage therapy after failure of oral steroids. For best results the treatment should be started at the earliest.

Standardization of Outcome Measures for Intratympanic Steroid Treatment for Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

To identify variability in reported hearing outcomes for intratympanic (IT) steroid treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) by comparing outcomes using the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) guideline with other published criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Tertiary otology practice.

PATIENTS

Patients with ISSNHL treated with IT steroid between April 2003 and December 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

IT steroid injection and audiometric evaluation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

1) Rates of full, partial, or no recovery using the AAO-HNS guideline versus other reported criteria, and 2) correlation analyses of demographic and clinical variables with response to IT steroid.

RESULTS

Using AAO-HNS reporting criteria, full recovery of the pure-tone average was noted in 25.68% of patients. Applying eight other published outcomes criteria to this patient cohort classified full recovery in 14.87 to 40.54% of patients. Similarly, AAO-HNS criteria classified "no recovery" in 51.35% of our patients, whereas applying the other reported criteria showed an average rate of 62.16% no recovery and as high as 82.43% of patients without recovery. Younger age ( p = 0.003; effect size, 0.924) and IT injection within a week of onset ( p < 0.001; effect size, 1.099) positively correlated with full recovery. There was no impact of prior or concurrent oral steroids, or number of steroid injections on outcome.

CONCLUSION

Great variability exists in the literature for assessment of IT steroid outcomes in ISSNHL. Standard reporting of outcomes as per the AAO-HNS SSNHL guideline is recommended to consistently characterize IT steroid efficacy and allow comparison across studies.

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A critique on corticosteroid therapy

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a condition affecting 5-30 per 100,000 individuals with the potential to significantly reduce one's quality of life. The true incidence of this condition is not known because it often goes undiagnosed and/or recovers within a few days. ISSNHL is defined as a ≥30 dB loss of hearing over 3 consecutive audiometric octaves within 3 days with no known cause. The disorder is typically unilateral and most of the cases spontaneously recover to functional hearing within 30 days. High frequency losses, ageing, and vertigo are associated with a poorer prognosis. Multiple causes of ISSNHL have been postulated and the most common are vascular obstruction, viral infection, or labyrinthine membrane breaks. Corticosteroids are the standard treatment option but this practice is not without opposition. Post mortem analyses of temporal bones of ISSNHL cases have been inconclusive. This report analyzed ISSNHL studies administering corticosteroids that met strict inclusion criteria and identified a number of methodologic shortcomings that compromise the interpretation of results. We discuss the issues and conclude that the data do not support present treatment practices. The current status on ISSNHL calls for a multi-institutional, randomized, double-blind trial with validated outcome measures to provide science-based treatment guidance.

The Impact of Intratympanic Steroid Dosage on Hearing Recovery in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how dexamethasone dosage impacts intratympanic steroid therapy (IST) for treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria identified subjects who received IST between January 1, 2010 and June 1, 2020 for iSSNHL. Subjects with Meniere's disease, autoimmune inner ear disease, subjects who received injections of non-dexamethasone steroid formulations, and subjects with missing audiogram data were excluded. Subjects were stratified by dexamethasone dosage: low-dose (10 mg/ml) versus high-dose (24 mg/ml), time-to-treatment and oral corticosteroid use. Outcome measures included post-treatment improvement in 4-frequency pure tone average (4F-PTA [500, 1000, 2000,4000 Hz]), low- and high-frequency PTA (250-1000 Hz and 2000-8000 Hz, respectively).

RESULTS

Of the 55 included subjects (50.9% male, mean age 48.9 ± 16.4 years), 31 received high-dose while 24 received low-dose injections. 90.9% of subjects were treated with oral steroids prior to or during IST. No significant differences in hearing outcomes were observed between low- and high-dose cohorts or when stratifying by oral steroid use. Time-to-treatment analysis comparing ≤1 month (67.3%) versus >1 month (32.7%) groups demonstrated a significant improvement in post-treatment 4F-PTA (P = .01) in the ≤1 month group.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing recovery was not significantly different between the 10 mg/ml versus 24 mg/ml doses of intratympanic dexamethasone, suggesting that steroid dose may not impact the efficacy of IST. A shorter time-to-treatment was observed to be favorable for hearing improvement.

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.

Comparison between postauricular steroid injection and intratympanic steroid perfusion for refractory severe and profound sudden sensorineural hearing loss

BACKGROUND

To analyze the clinical efficacy of intratympanic steroid perfusion (ISP) and postauricular steroid injection (PSI) for refractory severe and profound sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).

METHODS

SSNHL patients who failed a conventional treatment with severe to profound hearing loss [pure tone average (PTA, 0.25-8 kHz) > 60 dB] were treated with ISP or PSI plus antioxidant and neurotrophin for 10 consecutive days. Antioxidant and neurotrophin were administrated either intravenously and/or orally. All patients were assigned into the ISP group or the PSI group and followed up for more than three months. The changes in PTA, effective rate and side effects were analyzed in the two groups.

RESULTS

Similar hearing improvements and effective rates were observed in the two groups. However, a slightly better efficacy was observed in the PSI group compared to the ISP group. Patients with shorter intervals from onset to treatment had significantly more hearing improvements. The route of antioxidant and neurotrophin administration had no impact on treatment effects.

CONCLUSION

Both ISP and PSI could be used as salvage treatments for refractory SSNHL. These salvage treatments should be started as soon as possible once SSNHL patients fail a conventional treatment.

Comparison of Drug Availability in the Inner Ear After Oral, Transtympanic, and Combined Administration

Although combination of oral and transtympanic drug therapy (CT) has been proved more effective and safer for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) by some clinical trials, there are few laboratory researches on the pharmacokinetics in the inner ear following CT on account of structural limitations of the inner ear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic behaviors of CT in the inner ear of mice. Eighteen transgenic GFAP-Luc mice which express luciferase in cochlear spiral ganglion cells were divided into oral administration (OR) group, transtympanic injection route (TT) group and CT group, and luciferin was delivered into the inner ear of these mice through oral, transtympanic or combined routes, respectively. A new in vivo imaging system was used to observe luciferin/luciferase signals and the compare the pharmacokinetics of different administration routes in the inner ear of mice. Bioluminescence signals were observed in the inner ear 3.3 ± 2.6 min after CT, significantly earlier than that of OR group (15.8 ± 7.4 min). CT owned the longest reaching-peak time and largest area under the curve (AUC) among three groups. Compared to TT, CT had longer biological half-life and higher AUC value, but did not displayed stronger peak value. There were significant differences in the peak values between OR group and TT group and between OR group and CT group. This study suggests that the OR route is less effective than the TT or CT route, and combination of OR and TT can deliver more drugs into the inner ear and confer a longer therapeutic window, but cannot increase drug intensity.

Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of long-acting betamethasone and dexamethasone as injections in the treatment of idiopathic sudden hearing loss

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy of long-acting betamethasone, and its comparison with Dexamethasone as an intratympanic injection in the treatment of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-one patients who do not respond to systemic steroids and poor prognosis patients were enrolled in this study. The patients divided randomly into two groups: 1- Dexamethasone and 2- Long acting betamethasone. Dexamethasone (0.4 ml/mg) or long-acting betamethasone (0.1 ml/mg) was slowly injected (0.4 to 0.6 cc) into the superior-anterior area of the tympanic membrane as 6 injections twice a week for a total of 3 weeks. Right after the treatment and one, two and six months after completion of treatment, an audiometry was performed and compared with the pre-injection values.

RESULTS

Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) showed improvements in both groups immediately after treatment and in the follow-up period, compared to baseline. Speech Discrimination Score (SDS) also improved in both groups directly after treatment and at one-month follow-up. The hearing improvement in the Dexamethasone group was clinically better than in the Beta group, but due to the non-parametric data, it was not possible to analyze the hearing improvement process in the variable group.

CONCLUSION

According to the results obtained in this study, intratympanic corticosteroid injection in the treatment of patients with SSNHL has positive and promising results on improving hearing level.

Tympanic Membrane Perforation After Intratympanic Steroid Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the incidence of tympanic membrane (TM) perforations induced after intratympanic steroid injection (ITSI) in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE.

REVIEW METHODS

Primary database searches were performed, and 1901 records were identified. After removal of 1802 articles through abstract screening, the remaining 99 full-text journals were assessed for eligibility to be included in the study. Fifty-eight studies that used either ventilation tubing (VT) or tympanocentesis (TC) for ITSI were selected for analysis. The subjects were divided into VT and TC groups. The rate of TM perforation after ITSI in 2 groups, sites of ITSI, needle gauge, and influence on residual hearing were investigated.

RESULTS

The cohorts comprised patients who underwent VT (n = 257, 9.6%) and TC (n = 2415, 90.4%). The proportion of TM perforation after ITSI in each group was 0.073 (95% CI, 0.0469-0.1113) and 0.010 (95% CI, 0.0045-0.0215), respectively, which suggested that the VT group showed a significantly higher TM perforation rate than the TC group (P < .001). In the subgroup analyses, there was no significant difference in the odds ratio for the rate of TM perforation according to the injection site and needle gauge for TC. The proportion of surgical repair showed no significant difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

ITSI via VT may have a significantly higher risk of TM perforation than ITSI via TC, although those are relatively small overall. ITSI should be performed in the direction to minimize possible adverse effects.

Intratympanic steroid injection versus hyperbaric oxygen therapy in refractory sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The present meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of intratympanic steroid (ITS) injection and hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy as salvage treatments for refractory sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).

DATA SOURCES

Comprehensive searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from the date of the database inception to June 2020. All studies reporting the use of salvage ITS and HBO treatments in refractory SSNHL patients were included. Subsequently, the full texts of the eligible studies were evaluated.

METHODS

The quality and bias of the studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane's risk of bias tools for nonrandomized and randomized studies, respectively. The data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Version 3; Biostat, Englewood, NJ).

RESULTS

Three hundred and fourteen subjects in 3 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial met our inclusion criteria. The pooled results demonstrated that there were no significant differences in the mean posttreatment hearing gain between the ITS and HBO groups. The changes in word discrimination and hearing gain at 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 8000 Hz were also comparable between the two salvage treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled results demonstrated that there were no significant differences in hearing improvements between salvage ITS injection and salvage HBO therapy after failed primary systemic steroid treatment in patients with SSNHL. However, spontaneous recovery could bias the treatment outcomes, and these results should be interpreted with caution. Clinicians may choose these salvage treatments according to personal experience and treatment availability. In cases in which specialized HBO facilities are difficult to access, salvage ITS injection can be provided with comparable responses.

Intratympanic vs Systemic Corticosteroids in First-line Treatment of Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

To our knowledge, evidence-based recommendations on the intratympanic vs systemic administration of corticosteroids for the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss remain unestablished, and contradictory conclusions have been reported in previous meta-analyses.

Objective

To compare recovery from idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss based on systemic, intratympanic, or a combined treatment with corticosteroids as first-line treatment.

Data Sources

We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, OvidSP, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 1966, to July 1, 2018. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018109314).

Study Selection

We included randomized studies. Included studies must have excluded identifiable causes. Corticosteroids must have been administered solitarily. We excluded studies that did not define hearing loss as a minimum 30 dB within 72 hours.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

We identified 170 titles, of which 56 (32.9%) were eligible for full-text screening. We independently extracted data. We applied a fixed-effects model to investigate our objectives.

Main Outcomes and Measure

We aimed to (1) estimate the difference in mean pure tone average (PTA) gain in decibels from intratympanic treatment vs systemic treatment and (2) investigate odds ratios for recovery between the different treatment groups.

Results

We included 7 eligible studies. A total of 710 patients were allocated to receive either intratympanic treatment (IT group, 235 [33%]), systemic treatment (ST group; 325 [46%]) or combined intratympanic and systemic treatment (CB group; 150 [21%]). The PTA was measured by taking the mean of 4 frequencies: 4 studies measured at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz and 3 studies measured at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. The ST group had a 2.01-dB higher PTA gain (95% CI, -5.61 dB to 1.59 dB; P = .96; I2 = 0%) compared with the IT group and the odds for achieving complete recovery was not significantly different at an odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.44; P = .19; I2 = 34.5%). For the CB group vs the ST group, the odds ratio was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.82; P = .75; I2 = 0%). The analysis of the CB group vs IT group comprised only 2 studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study does not suggest that corticosteroid delivered intratympanically is more beneficial than systemic treatment in the case of moderate to severe idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. There were no indications that combined treatment was associated with improved hearing outcomes compared with either systemic or intratympanic treatment.

Effectiveness of Steroid Treatment for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background:

The best way to administer steroids for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL) is still unclear. The present study was aimed at estimating the efficacy of steroids by intratympanic, systemic, and combined therapy (CT) routes.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was performed from 1950 to October 2019 for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of intratympanic, systemic, and combined steroid therapy for SSHL. The outcomes of recovery rate and pure tone average (PTA) improvement were assessed by random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 20 articles identified from 7 countries were eligible for analysis. Although no significant difference in recovery rate was observed between intratympanic steroid therapy (IST) and systemic steroid therapy (SST), IST did demonstrate better hearing improvement, as evidenced by a higher PTA than SST. Compared with SST, CT comprising IST and SST had significant recovery rate improvement. Patients treated with CT had a significantly higher PTA than those treated with SST. Through subgroup analysis based on the equivalent dose of prednisone, it was shown that CT led to a significantly higher PTA than SST only in the high-dose CT versus high-dose SST groups and moderate-dose CT versus high-dose SST groups.

Conclusion:

Moderate and high dose of CT could accelerate hearing improvement in SSHL.

Addition of intratympanic steroid or hyperbaric oxygen treatment to systemic steroid treatment in sudden idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss treatment, and long-term results of salvage treatment

Background/aim

This study aims to determine the therapeutic superiority of the addition of intratympanic steroid or hyperbaric oxygen therapy to systemic steroid treatment in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss as initial treatment, and evaluate the long-term results of salvage treatment.

Materials and methods

This study was a retrospective clinical trial with a total of 96 patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n: 32) received systemic steroid treatment. Group 2 (n: 32) received the Group 1 protocol plus intratympanic steroid treatment. Group 3 (n: 32) received the Group 1 protocol plus hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Pretreatment and postinitial audiologic evaluations were performed, and the hearing outcome was analyzed with Furuhashi criteria. All patients, except those who experienced total recovery after initial treatment, were directed to salvage treatment. Audiologic assessment was performed again after salvage treatment and a mean follow-up period of 36.5 months.

Results

Each group was homogenous according to demographics, audiologic data, and prognostic factors. There was no statistically significant difference in recovery and success rate within the 3 groups after initial treatment. (P: 0.66, P: 0.248, respectively). Successful results were obtained after salvage treatment in only 3 patients (5%). These patients received follow-up treatment at a mean of 36.5 months, but there was no spontaneous recovery after the end of salvage treatment.

Conclusion

The addition of intratympanic steroids or hyperbaric oxygen to systemic steroids caused no significant hearing improvement as the initial treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The efficacy of salvage treatment was limited, and there was no spontaneous hearing improvement after the long-term follow-up.

Association of Vertigo With Hearing Outcomes in Patients With Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL) accompanied by vertigo may portend a negative prognosis in the hearing outcome.

Objective

To investigate the association of vertigo with prognosis of hearing variables in SSHL.

Data Sources

A literature search of eligible studies was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from September 26, 1973, through September 26, 2017. Studies published in English were retrieved with no restrictions on the date of publication. References were identified by screening the proceedings of relevant reviews, and annual meeting and other correlative papers were scanned manually for enrollment.

Study Selection

All original research studies and retrospective or prospective studies focusing on the role of vertigo in the prognosis for the hearing outcome of SSHL were systematically retrieved. Studies that did not include data regarding the association between the rate of hearing recovery and vertigo were excluded, as were reviews, comments, case reports, editorials, letters, and practice guidelines.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were extracted and evaluated by 2 researchers. Data extracted included research type, number of participants with or without vertigo, treatment regime, definition of pure-tone average, criteria for hearing improvement, and length of follow-up. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (scores range from 0-9, with a score of ≥6 indicating a high-quality study). The data were synthesized in Mantel-Haenszel models; the aggregate results were estimated in forest plots.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association of vertigo with the prognosis for the hearing outcome of SSHL.

Results

Of the 4814 unique patients identified in 10 studies, 1709 were included in the SSHL group with vertigo and 3105 were included in SSHL group without vertigo. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of each study selected was greater than 7. The recovery rate of hearing was 42.13% in the group with vertigo, compared with 60.29% in the group without vertigo. Vertigo was significantly associated with a worse hearing recovery (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.54-3.20; I2 = 74%). Similar results were obtained in subgroup analyses of the grading system using the Siegel criteria and systemic corticosteroid therapy. However, no association of vertigo with the prognosis of SSHL was observed within the subgroup receiving intratympanic corticosteroids (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.64-4.94; I2 = 70%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Current evidence revealed that vertigo may be negatively associated with hearing recovery in patients with SSHL, except in a subgroup that received intratympanic corticosteroids. Corticosteroid injection may be more effective for treatment of SSHL accompanied by vertigo; future studies are needed to determine whether treatment of vertigo might contribute to the recovery of SSHL.

Comparison of inner ear drug availability of combined treatment with systemic or local drug injections alone

Combination of systemic and local drug therapy has been proved more effective and safer for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss by some clinical trials, and there are few laboratory researches on its pharmacokinetic behaviors in the inner ear. In the present study, we use a new in vivo imaging system to compare the pharmacokinetics of combined therapy (CT), with intravenous (IV) or transtympanic (TT) injection alone in both ears of transgenic GFAP-Luc mice. Biological half-life, total photon counts and the area under the curve (AUC) value significantly increased after CT. However, adding IV to TT injection cannot strengthen the peak photon of the drug in the inner ear. In addition, when D-luciferin is injected to the left ear the volume of total photon count and AUC value of CT-left ear are larger than the combined volume of TT-left ear and IV-left ear, suggesting a synergistic effect, and those of CT-right ear are almost equal to the summation of those of IV-right group and TT-right group, suggesting no amplifying effect on the risk of systemic side effect. This study showed that CT could deliver more drugs into the inner ear, and brought a longer therapeutic window, and were more effective than intravenous or transtympanic injection alone in the pharmacokinetics.

Efficacy of Intratympanic Steroid on Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: An Analysis of Cases With Negative Prognostic Factors

Purpose We retrospectively studied the efficacy of intratympanic steroid administration in comparison with hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) with negative prognostic factors. Method We enrolled 301 patients (302 ears) with ISSNHL (average hearing level at 250-4000 Hz ≥ 40 dB; time from onset to treatment ≤ 30 days). From August 2002 to March 2009, 174 patients (174 ears) received systemic steroid plus HBO therapy (HBO group), and from June 2015 to January 2018, 127 patients (128 ears) received systemic plus intratympanic steroid (IT group). Hearing outcomes were evaluated by 6 indices: cure rate, marked-recovery rate (percent of patients with hearing gain ≥ 30 dB), recovery rate (percent of patients with hearing gain ≥ 10 dB), hearing gain, hearing level after treatment, and percent hearing improvement compared to the unaffected contralateral ear. Results The recovery rate was significantly higher in the IT group than in the HBO group (80.5% vs. 68.4%, p = .019). The IT group showed a higher recovery rate than the HBO group in patients aged ≥ 60 years ( p = .010), patients with early (≤ 7 days from onset) treatment ( p = .005), patients with initial hearing levels ≥ 90 dB ( p = .037), and patients with vertigo/dizziness ( p = .040). The IT group also showed higher hearing gain and percent hearing improvement than the HBO group in patients with vertigo/dizziness ( p = .046 and p = .026, respectively). Conclusions Systemic plus intratympanic steroid is more effective for ISSNHL than systemic steroid plus HBO, particularly in patients with negative prognostic factors, such as old age, profound hearing loss, and/or presence of vertigo/dizziness.

Intratympanic Steroid Use for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Current Otolaryngology Practice

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the current practice of intratympanic steroid (ITS) injection for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) in the United Kingdom and link the data with data from the United States and continental Europe.

METHODS

A survey of 21 questions was distributed to members of the British Society of Otology using an online survey platform via ENT UK. Data obtained from UK otolaryngologists (n = 171) were integrated with previously published data from other countries, including the United States (n = 63) and continental Europe (n = 908).

RESULTS

In the United Kingdom, 62% of responding otolaryngologists use ITS injection for SSNHL, while 38% do not. Of those using ITS, 59% use it as first-line treatment, either using it in conjunction with oral steroids (51%) or using it as monotherapy (8%). Of those that use ITS, a majority (83%) use it as salvage therapy when primary treatment with systemic steroids has failed, and similar results are found in the continental Europe and US surveys. The most commonly used preparation is dexamethasone. Responses to questions regarding treatment regimes used are enlightening and show considerable variation in the treatment regimes used within and between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide variation in practice with regards to ITS for SSNHL hearing loss in the United Kingdom, United States, and continental Europe. In the absence of protocols or definitive guidance from published literature, knowledge of contemporary practice may help guide or encourage reevaluation of clinical practice and will help guide the design of future clinical trials.

The Efficacy of Concurrent or Sequential Intravenous and Intratympanic Steroid for Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Objective: The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the difference in treatment outcomes for patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) undergoing concurrent or sequential intravenous (IV) and intratympanic (IT) steroid therapies. Methods: Patients with idiopathic SSNHL admitted to Taipei Veterans Hospital from August 2011 to August 2012 were enrolled. Patients were treated with both IV dexamethasone 5 mg b.i.d. for 5 days, then tapered over 6 days, and IT injections of dexamethasone 5 mg daily. The administration of IV and IT steroids was given either concurrently or sequentially (IV steroid was administered from days 1–5 followed by IT steroid treatment starting on day 4 or day 5). The hearing outcomes of the concurrent and sequential groups were analyzed. Results: Overall, after ≥2 months following treatment, across frequencies ranging from 250 to 8,000 Hz and pure-tone average (PTA) assessments, hearing improvements were similar between treatment groups, except at the frequencies of 4,000 and 8,000 Hz where the concurrent treatment group had greater hearing gain than the sequential group (4,000 Hz: 30.68 ± 28.96 vs. 14.52 ± 24.06 dB, respectively, p = 0.042; 8,000 Hz: 22.62 ± 23.59 vs. 7.67 ± 21 dB, p = 0.030). Across frequencies and PTA assessments, a similar percentage of patients had ≥20-dB gains in hearing compared with patients treated sequentially, except at 8,000 Hz where a greater percentage of patients in the concurrent group (57.1%) than the sequential group (23.3%) (p = 0.014) had ≥20-dB hearing gains. Conclusion: The findings suggest that both concurrent and sequential treatment improve hearing in patients with idiopathic SSNHL, and that concurrent treatment may show greater benefit than sequential therapy, particularly at high frequencies.

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.

Current concepts in the management of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this manuscript is to review the initial management strategies for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with an emphasis on the role that steroids play in treatment of this condition, and discuss options for auditory rehabilitation of persistent unilateral hearing loss.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data suggest that hearing improvement may be greater for patients initially treated with both systemic and intratympanic steroid when compared with those treated with systemic steroids alone. Salvage intratympanic steroids have been shown to confer hearing benefit if initial management fails. The ideal dosing regimen for intratympanic steroids has not been established, but evidence supports that higher dosing strategies are advantageous. Cochlear implantation has emerged as a strategy for auditory rehabilitation of persistent unilateral hearing loss. Recent studies have demonstrated high patient satisfaction, subjective improvement in tinnitus, and objective performance benefit after cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness.

SUMMARY

Patients can be offered steroid therapy in the initial management of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, but should be counseled that the efficacy of steroids remains unclear. If patients fail to improve with initial management, salvage intratympanic steroid administration should be considered. If hearing loss persists long term, options for auditory rehabilitation should be discussed.

Systemic, intratympanic and combined administration of steroids for sudden hearing loss. A prospective randomized multicenter trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial was to compare the therapeutic efficacy of systemic versus intratympanic versus combined administration of steroids in the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

METHODS

102 patients with an up to 14 days history of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss were randomized to 1 of 3 arms and followed prospectively. Group A (35 patients) received prednisolone intravenously followed by methylprednisolone orally, whereas Group B (34 patients) were administered intratympanic methylprednisolone. Patients in Group C (33 patients) were administered the combination of the above-mentioned treatment modalities. The patients were followed-up with pure tone audiograms on days 1 (initiation of treatment), 3, 5, 10, 30 and 90.

RESULTS

The final mean hearing gain was 29.0 dB HL for Group A, 27.0 dB HL for Group B and 29.8 dB HL for Group C. The differences between the three groups were not statistically significant. When hearing improvement was assessed according to Siegel's criteria, no statistically significant difference was recorded either. Furthermore, patients younger than 60 years old achieved significantly better hearing outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrated that systemic, intratympanic and combined steroid administration have similar results in the primary treatment of idiopathic sudden hearing loss. Younger patients are more likely to achieve better hearing outcomes.

Intratympanic corticosteroid for sudden hearing loss: does it really work?

Introduction

Sudden deafness is characterized by an abrupt hearing loss of at least 30 dB in three sequential frequencies in the standard pure tone audiogram over three days or less. Treatment is based on its etiology, and oral corticosteroids are widely used. Intratympanic corticosteroids are included as primary or secondary treatment when there is no improvement with the use of oral corticosteroids.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of therapy with intratympanic steroids in sudden deafness.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of publications on the topic in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, with the keywords: sudden deafness, sudden hearing loss, and corticosteroids.

Results

Thirty scientific studies were analyzed. As to the objectives of the study analyzed, 76.7% sought to evaluate the use of intratympanic therapy salvage after failure to conventional treatment, and intratympanic therapy was used as the primary treatment 23.3% of the studies.

Conclusion

Intratympanic corticosteroid therapy is prescribed primarily when there is failure of conventional therapy and when it is limited to use systemic corticosteroids, such as the diabetic patient.

Combined intratympanic and systemic use of steroids for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a meta-analysis

The main objective of the meta-analysis was to investigate whether intratympanic steroid injections in combination with systemic steroids would provide an additional advantage over systemic steroid therapy (SST) alone in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL). The results will provide a meaningful suggestion in clinical therapy of ISSNHL. The electronic database search was based on the database in OVID Medline, Embase and PubMed up to December 15, 2015 with the goal of identifying all available observational studies examining the effects of combination therapy and SST in ISSNHL patients. Observational studies that compared the pure tone average (PTA) improvement and recovery rate between combination therapy and SST group in ISSNHL patients were selected. Finally we have identified eight eligible studies that focused on comparing the combination therapy and SST in ISSNHL from designated researches. In the PTA improvement group, seven studies have been analyzed to compare the pooled mean differences between two therapy modalities and subgroups based on initial hearing loss and treatment delay. In the recovery rate group, six studies were calculated for pooled risk ratios and subgroup analysis was also conducted. Through our meta-analysis, we have reached the conclusion that combination therapy exhibited better outcomes in PTA improvement than SST alone, especially in severe-profound initial hearing loss cases. Combination therapy also showed advantages in recovery rate. Whether time of treatment delay would influence the PTA improvement and recovery rate requires further researches.

A comparison of effects of systemic and intratympanic steroid therapies for sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intratympanic and systemic steroid therapies in the initial treatment of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL) patients.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Wanfang database and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) was performed covering the period from January 1990 to July 2014. A meta-analysis was conducted after filtering by the criteria of Cochrane Collaboration. Three hundred fifty six subjects in nine studies allocated to the group of intratympanic steroid therapies and 343 controls receiving systemic steroid therapies met the criteria for meta-analysis. The data were extracted and analyzed using the RevMan 5.3 meta-analysis software.

Results

The total effectiveness rate in SSNHL patients receiving intratympanic steroid therapies did not differ statistically from patients receiving systemic therapies (RR = 1.08, 95％CI = 0.99–1.99, P = 0.10), although the rate of full hearing recovery in this group differed significantly from patients receiving systemic therapies (RR = 1.29, 95％CI = 1.00–1.66, P = 0.05).

Conclusion

Local steroid therapy appears to generate higher rate of complete hearing recovery than systemic steroid treatment as an initial treatment for SSNHL, which may be especially useful for patients in whom systemic steroids are contraindicated.

Inner ear delivery of dexamethasone using injectable silk-polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel

Minimally invasive delivery and sustained release of therapeutics to the inner ear are of importance to the medical treatment of inner ear disease. In this study, the injectable silk fibroin-polyethylene glycol (Silk-PEG) hydrogel was investigated as a drug delivery carrier to deliver poorly soluble micronized dexamethasone (mDEX) to the inner ear of guinea pigs. Encapsulation of mDEX with a loading up to 5% (w/v) did not significantly change the silk gelation time, and mDEX were evenly distributed in the PEG-Silk hydrogel as visualized by SEM. The loading of mDEX in Silk-PEG hydrogel largely influenced in vitro drug release kinetics. The optimized Silk-PEG-mDEX hydrogel (2.5% w/v loading, in situ-forming, 10 μl) was administered directly onto the round window membrane of guinea pigs. The DEX concentration in perilymph maintained above 100 ng/ml for at least 10 days for the Silk-PEG formulation while less than 12h for the control sample of free mDEX. Minimal systemic exposure was achieved with low DEX concentrations (<0.2 μg/ml) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma in the first 2h after the local application of the Silk-PEG-mDEX hydrogel. A transient hearing threshold shift was found but then resolved after 14 days as revealed by auditory brainstem response (ABR), showing minimal inflammatory responses on the round window membrane and scala taympani. The Silk-PEG hydrogel completely degraded in 21 days. Thus, the injectable PEG-Silk hydrogel is an effective and safe vehicle for inner ear delivery and sustained release of glucocorticoid.

Is Intratympanic Dexamathasone Injection Effective for the Treatment of Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to identify the effectiveness of intratympanic (IT) steroids when used as an initial therapy in sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), and when it is used as a salvage therapy in a refractory SSNHL.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 122 patients with SSNHL. First, patients were divided into three groups according to the initial treatment; IT steroid, systemic steroid and combined (systemic and IT steroid) groups. Second, patients were divided into two groups according to the salvage treatment in a refractory SSNHL; IT steroid and the control (non IT group). Fifty eight patients who did not respond to initial therapy were included in the second analysis. Hearing was assessed immediately before the treatment and 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 3 months after the treatments. Hearing recovery was defined as an improvement of >15 dB and the final hearing of 25-45 dB in the audiogram.

RESULTS

When we analyzed the hearing recovery in initial treatment, the comparison of audiogram among three groups did not result in significantly different outcomes. There were no differences in the recovery rate in 2 and 4 weeks throughout all the frequencies. Also, the analysis of the salvage treatment demonstrated that neither IT steroid group nor control group was significantly effective in treating the refractory SSNHL.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that initial treatment of SSNHL with IT steroid alone is as effective as systemic steroid alone or a combination therapy. Also, salvage IT steroids for refractory SSNHL did not have any additional beneficial effects.

Potential Benefits of Combination Therapy as Primary Treatment for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Objective

We analyzed the effectiveness of combination therapy (CT) for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) and the utility of intratympanic dexamethasone injection (ITDI) reapplication as salvage treatment for ISSNHL refractory to CT.

Study Design

Case series with chart review.

Setting

Academic university hospital.

Subjects and Methods

We reviewed 229 patients with ISSNHL and divided these patients into 2 groups according to treatment: systemic steroid therapy (SST) and CT groups. The SST group received prednisolone therapy. The CT group also received ITDI daily. Patients who demonstrated no recovery (<10 dB) after initial treatment were defined as refractory and received salvage ITDI therapy: ITDI reapplication in the CT group and ITDI application in the SST group.

Results

Hearing recovery rates were 77.8% (77/99) in the CT group and 60.8% (79/130) in the SST group. The difference was statistically significant ( P = .011). Initial pure-tone audiometry and vertigo were affective factors on hearing recovery rates in the CT group. After salvage therapy, hearing improvement of 10 dB or greater was noted in 6 of the 22 (27.3%) patients in the CT group and 16 of the 51 (31.4%) patients in the SST group. The difference in efficacy of salvage therapy between the CT and SST groups was simply not significant ( P = .612).

Conclusions

Combination therapy was more effective for ISSNHL in achieving hearing gain than SST alone. Furthermore, ITDI reapplication for ISSNHL refractory to CT was as effective as salvage ITDI for ISSNHL refractory to SST.

[Intratympanic injection therapy for therapy refractory acute hearing loss: A safe option for secondary treatment]

BACKGROUND

High-dose corticosteroids are currently recommended for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) treatment. Intratympanic injections (ITI) are of growing importance, especially in cases of therapy resistance. The selection of patients for this procedure in SSNHL has not been adequately examined so far.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 77 patients with ISSNHL after ineffective systemic pretreatment underwent intratympanic administration of dexamethasone and hyaluronic acid. Improvement after treatment was determined by pure tone audiometry for both ears before and of the treated ear after ITI.

RESULTS

In this study 34 female and 43 male patients with mean age of 57 years showed a pre-ITI hearing loss of 35 dB in the lower frequencies and 69 dB in the higher frequencies. The mean hearing gain was 10 dB and the response rate was 62%. Absolute hearing gain revealed significant improvements at 500 Hz, 1 kHz and 2 kHz. Under inclusion of contralateral thresholds there were hardly any differences up to 4 kHz. In a detailed analysis of responders moderate improvements could be observed even in higher frequencies. Overall, no relevant adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of ISSNHL resistant to systemic regimens by ITI of steroids provides an option that offers additional prospects of auditory improvement for affected patients. The presented results indicate that these modalities are also valid for patients with pancochlear ISSNHL.

Steroid-based treatments for patients with total sudden sensorineural hearing loss

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with total sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), oral prednisone (OP) alone or intratympanic dexamethasone (ITD) alone have comparable results. The addition of salvage ITD following OP does not seem to add over either single modality treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To study the effect of steroid-based treatments in patients with total SSNHL.

METHODS

The medical charts of 59 patients with total loss of hearing, defined as pure tone thresholds in the profound range (> 90 dB) with an unobtainable speech reception threshold (SRT) that were treated with OP (n = 20), ITD (n = 13), or OP followed by salvage ITD (n = 26) were analyzed. Response to treatment was evaluated by means of pure tone thresholds, SRT, and speech discrimination score (SDS), immediately after treatment and on a follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients (83%) responded to treatment, with mean significant improvements of 36, 34, 31, and 25 dB at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, respectively. The mean improvement in SRT was 33 dB, and SDS improved by 32%. There were no differences in improvement in pure tone thresholds and SRT among the three treatment groups. The late effect of OP was similar to the effect of salvage ITD.

Intratympanic corticosteroids injections: a systematic review of literature

The objective of the study was to determine the evidence of intratympanic steroids injections (ITSI) for efficacy in the management of the following inner ear diseases: Ménière's disease, tinnitus, noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL). The data sources were literature review from 1946 to December 2014, PubMed and Medline. A systematic review of the existing literature was performed. Databases were searched for all human prospective randomized clinical trials using ITSI in at least one treatment group. The authors identified 29 prospective randomized clinical trials investigating the benefits of an intratympanic delivery of steroids. Six articles on Ménière's disease were identified, of which one favored ITSI over placebo in vertigo control. Of the five randomized clinical trials on tinnitus therapy, one study found better tinnitus control with ITSI. The only available trial on NIHL showed significant hearing recovery with combination therapy (ITSI and oral steroids therapy). Seventeen studies were identified on ISSNHL, of which 10 investigated ITSI as a first-line therapy and 7 as a salvage therapy. Studies analysis found benefits in hearing recovery in both settings. Due to heterogeneity in treatment protocols and follow-up, a meta-analysis was not performed. Given the low adverse effects rates of ITSI therapy and good patient tolerability, local delivery should be considered as an interesting adjunct to the therapy of the ISSNHL and NIHL. Only one article over six where ITSI therapy offers potential benefits to patients with Ménière's disease in the control of tinnitus and vertigo was found. ITSI does not seem to be effective in the treatment of tinnitus.

Therapeutic Efficacy of the Combination of Intratympanic Methylprednisolone and Oral Steroid for Idiopathic Sudden Deafness

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of systemic steroid alone and combined with intratympanic methylprednisolone in the treatment of patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

Study Design

Prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Settings

Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.

Subject and Methods

Seventy-nine patients who met the inclusion criteria for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups according to treatment: group A received combination therapy (intratympanic methylprednisolone + oral steroid) and group B received oral steroid alone. Of the 79 patients included, 6 patients missed the 1-month follow-up visit. Overall, 73 patients (37 combination group, 36 oral steroid group) who completed the 1-month follow-up and study intervention were included in the per-protocol analysis. Both the relationship between certain prognostic factors and the clinical outcome after treatment were analyzed.

Results

Combination therapy showed significant hearing improvement and speech discrimination scores compared with the use of systemic steroids alone ( P < .05). In hearing outcomes in patients with severe hearing loss, combination therapy had statistically significant hearing improvement compared with oral steroid alone ( P < .05).

Conclusion

We recommend that combination therapy can be considered as initial treatment especially for patients with severe hearing loss.