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.

The value of having an initial word recognition score for a precise prognosis of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

Although the hearing thresholds of patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) closely relate to the prognosis that results in progressive floor effects, many studies have usually used hearing thresholds as the main outcome of the measurement of prognostic factors. The present study aimed to identify the prognostic factors related to initial hearing tests and speculates the effects of word recognition score (WRS) on the prognoses for patients with ISSNHL.

METHODS

Between March 2011 and November 2020, we retrospectively reviewed chart profiles of 2,636 ISSNHL patients. The 180 patients who met the inclusion criteria were asked to participate in the present study. Based on their initial WRS, all these patients were divided into good WRS (GW) and poor WRS (PW) groups with 52% as the cut-off points. Demographic, clinical, and audiological variables, such as age, onset time, duration of treatment, gender, ear side, comorbidities (i.e., hypertension, diabetes mellitus, tinnitus, dizziness), hearing configuration (i.e., ascending, descending, flat, irregular, and profound), treatment options (i.e., systemic corticosteroid therapy per oral, intratympanic steroid injection, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy), and WRS were analyzed as being underlying prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significantly different distributions for hearing thresholds and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) as general characteristics. The results of a multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio (OR) of age (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.59 - 24.25), duration of treatment (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96 - 1.00), ascending configuration (OR: 4.97, 95% CI: 1.64 - 16.62), irregular configuration (OR: 4.58, 95% CI: 1.62 - 13.79), and WRS (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00 - 1.02) were the significant prognostic factors for all the patients. Further analysis of those patients with WRS under 52% cut-off points showed that an ascending configuration (OR: 5.87, 95% CI: 1.18 - 35.99), irregular configuration (OR: 8.03, 95% CI: 1.69 - 46.30), and WRS (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.10) significantly affected the prognosis. As the initial WRS of ISSNHL patients decreased, the OR of the WRS itself increased. These results suggested that the importance of WRS as the prognostic factor was stressed for PW patients.

CONCLUSION

The age, duration of treatment, initial hearing configuration (ascending and irregular types), and WRS were the significant prognostic factors for patients with ISSNHL. It was learned that WRS could be a remarkable prognostic factor to consider, especially for ISSNHL patients with poor WRS.

Steroid Nomenclature in Inner Ear Therapy

: Local glucocorticosteroid ("steroid") therapy is widely used to treat the inner ears of patients with Menière's disease, idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and in combination with cochlear implants. Applied steroids have included dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, and triamcinolone. In reality, however, this is often not true and the steroid forms commonly applied are dexamethasone-phosphate, methylprednisolone-hemisuccinate, or triamcinolone-acetonide. In each case, the additional component is not a counter-ion but is covalently bound to the molecule to increase aqueous solubility or potency. These drug forms are approved for intravenous or intramuscular delivery and are used "off-label" in the ear. When given systemically, the molecular form of the drug is of minor importance as the drugs are rapidly metabolized. In contrast, when administered intratympanically, the exact form of the drug has a major influence on entry into perilymph and elimination from perilymph, which in turn influences distribution along the cochlear scalae. Dexamethasone-phosphate has completely different molecular properties to dexamethasone and has different pharmacokinetic properties entering and leaving perilymph. Molecular properties and perilymph pharmacokinetics also differ markedly for triamcinolone and triamcinolone-acetonide. Methylprednisolone-hemisuccinate has completely different molecular properties to methylprednisolone. In the ear, different steroid forms cannot therefore be regarded as equivalent in terms of pharmacokinetics or efficacy. This presents a terminology problem, where in many cases the drug stated in publications may not be the form actually administered. The lack of precision in nomenclature is a serious problem for the inner ear drug delivery field and needs to be recognized.

Clinical Feature and Prognosis of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Recent publications reported that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience an increased risk of suffering sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), however, these cases are poorly understood. This study aims to explore the clinical presentations and hearing recovery of SSNHL patients with RA.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary medical center.

PATIENTS

Forty-seven SSNHL patients with RA (RA group) and 431 SSNHL patients without RA (non-RA group) were recruited between April 2015 and June 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

In the non-RA group, all patients were administrated with oral steroids. In the RA group, 21 patients were treated with oral steroid (OS group) and 26 patients were administrated with intratympanic steroids plus oral steroids (IS+OS group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We explored the clinical features and hearing recovery of SSNHL patients with RA in comparison with patients without RA, we also evaluated the therapeutic effect of combined steroids in SSNHL patients with RA.

RESULTS

RA group had higher initial hearing loss level (mean 68.5 dB), final hearing threshold (mean 52.3 dB), the rates of profound hearing loss (48.9%), and no recovery (48.9%) than non-RA group (mean 55.1 dB, mean 34.8 dB, 32.9 and 27.6%, all p < 0.05), however, had lower hearing gains (mean 16.1 dB) and the rate of partial recovery (12.8%) than non-RA group (mean 20.3 dB and 28.8%, all p < 0.05). Furthermore, IS+OS group had higher hearing gains (mean 21.1 dB) and lower rate of no recovery (30.8%) than in the OS group (mean 10.0 dB and 71.4%, all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SSNHL patients with RA experienced severe hearing loss and had poor hearing prognosis. IS+OS provide better hearing recovery than OS for this population.

Comparison of 2 Different Intratympanic Methylprednisolone Injection Schedules in Combination With Intravenous Dexamethasone for Unilateral Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss is a common otologic disease in clinic. Systemic and intratympanic steroid treatment have been proved to be effective, but the regimens vary from center to center. The purpose of the study is to analyze the effects of the combined application of intravenous dexamethasone and intratympanic methylprednisolone injection in different time strategies for the treatment of unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss. A retrospective chart review was performed for the period from March 2016 to June 2018 at our Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. A total number of 61 patients who met the academy criteria for unilateral sudden hearing loss were included and grouped based on the time to introduce intratympanic methylprednisolone. All the patients received intravenous dexamethasone 10 mg once daily for 5 days, followed 5 mg once daily for the next 7 days. Intratympanic methylprednisolone (40 mg) was injected every other day 4 times into all patients. This regimen was commenced on day 1 in group 1 and on day 6 in group 2. The pre and posttreatment pure-tone audiograms were analyzed. Sixty-one patients met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed between patients' demographics or pretreatment hearing thresholds. In the 3 months posttreatment pure-tone audiogram assessment, the mean hearing threshold improvement were similar between groups with no frequency specificity. The curative rate in both groups were similar and satisfying. Two patients with diabetes mellitus had persistent small perforations. Some patients had other transient discomfort that disappeared before discharge. The different timing of initiation of intratympanic methylprednisolone injection does not significantly affect the outcome of the treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Thus, we suggest that intratympanic steroid injection should not be applied as a first-line method except for patients who do not respond early to systemic steroid therapy.