Treatment-refractory autoimmune sensorineural hearing loss: response to infliximab

Sex differences in autoimmune inner ear disease treatment and audiological outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess possible sex-related differences in AIED treatment. The secondary aim was to assess the long-term outcomes of treatment using pre- and post-treatment audiometry and speech discrimination scores.

METHODS

Adult patients with a diagnosis of AIED who were treated for their condition at the senior author's (RTS) practice from 2010 to 2022 were included in this study. Patients were grouped as males or females for further analysis and comparison. Data included past medical history, medication use, surgical history and social history. Air-conduction thresholds (500 to 8000 Hz) were collected and averaged into discrete variables for pre- and post-treatment. The change (∆) and percent change (%∆) of these variables following therapy were analyzed. Speech discrimination score (SDS) testing results were taken at the same time points as pure tone averages, and patients were sub-stratified based on evidence of improvement in SDS and compared accordingly.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-four patients (78 male/106 female) were included in this study. The mean age of the male participants was 57.18 ± 15.92 years, and the mean age of the female participants was 53.49 ± 16.04 years (p = 0.220). Comorbid autoimmune disease (AD) was more prevalent in females than in males (38.7 % vs. 16.7 %, p = 0.001). Of the patients treated with oral steroids, females received significantly more courses than males (2.554 ± 2.078 vs. 1.946 ± 1.301, p = 0.020). However, the average duration of oral steroids used per trial did not differ significantly between males and females (21.02 ± 18.05 vs. 20.62 ± 7.49, p = 0.135). Audiological results demonstrated that the change (∆) in pure tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz (-4.21 ± 6.394 vs. -3.91 ± 6.105) and high-frequency pure tone average (HFPTA) at 4, 6, and 8 kHz (-4.55 ± 6.544 vs. -2.19 ± 6.842) was not significantly different between the sexes following treatment (p = 0.376 and p = 0.101, respectively). Similarly, the percentage change (%∆) in PTA (-13.17 % vs. -15.01 %) and HFPTA (-8.50 % vs. -6.76 %) also did not differ significantly between males and females (p = 0.900 and p = 0.367, respectively). One hundred-five (57.1 %) patients qualified for the SDS improvement subgroup for analysis, with 50 (47.6 %) being male and 55 (51.9 %) being female (p = 0.159). The change (∆) in SDS (15.12 ± 21.159 vs. 10.62 ± 19.206) and the percentage change (%∆) in SDS (16.71 % vs. 12.40 %) also showed no significant difference between male and female patients (p = 0.312 and p = 0.313, respectively).

CONCLUSION

AIED is not a uniform condition regarding clinical presentation, audiological findings or progression, nor is its treatment straightforward. The utilization and duration of cytotoxic medications, as well as PTA and SDS findings, did not differ between the sexes. However, significantly more courses of oral steroids were prescribed to females than males. Sex as a biological variable and its implications in the pathogenesis and treatment of AIED warrant further study.

Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in the Treatment of Autoimmune Inner Ear Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Auditory and Vestibular Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To answer the following question: In patients with primary autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED), (population) what impact do disease-modifying antirheumatic agents (DMARDs) (intervention) when compared with no treatment or corticosteroids (comparison) have on auditory and vestibular outcomes (outcome)?

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

According to PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 10, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies of patients receiving DMARDs for the treatment of AIED were selected for review. Case reports, phase I/II trials, studies of patients with secondary AIED, and studies of AIED patients receiving solely corticosteroids were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Primary outcomes were pure-tone audiometry and speech discrimination scores at baseline and after DMARD treatment. Secondary outcomes were rates of subjective audiovestibular complaints and rates of adverse reactions. No objective vestibular outcomes underwent meta-analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Mean differences were calculated using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q test and I2 statistic. Pooled prevalence rates of audiovestibular symptoms were expressed as a percentage with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Ten studies with a total of 187 patients were included. Treatments included methotrexate, etanercept, azathioprine, anakinra, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, and infliximab. Mean treatment duration was 10.8 ± 22.2 months and mean follow-up was 13.7 ± 8.1 months. The pure-tone audiometry and speech discrimination scores mean differences between baseline and post-DMARD were -2.1 [-4.1, -0.1] dB and 13.9 [8.5, 19.4] %, respectively. Seven studies reported 38 adverse events, four of which were classified as serious.

CONCLUSION

DMARDs showed statistically significant improvement in auditory outcomes, as well as subjective symptoms, with relatively low rates of adverse events. They warrant further exploration to better compare with corticosteroids.

Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Sjögren’s Syndrome

Sjögren’s syndrome is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic dysfunction of exocrine glands, mainly the salivary and lachrymal glands. Sjögren’s syndrome consists of two forms: primary Sjögren’s syndrome, which is characterized by dry eyes and dry mouth without autoimmune diseases; and secondary Sjögren’s syndrome, which is characterized by symptoms associated with other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus. Disease severities vary considerably from mild glandular dryness to severe glandular involvement with numerous extraglandular and systemic features. Sensorineural hearing loss is sometimes observed in both primary and secondary Sjögren’s syndrome. This review article consists of (1) Pathology of Sjögren’s syndrome, (2) Clinical manifestation of Sjögren’s syndrome, (3) Autoimmune inner ear disease, (4) Histoanatomical features of the inner ear, (5) Immunological characteristics of the inner ear, (6) Pathophysiology of autoimmune inner ear disease, (7) Treatment for sensorineural hearing loss in Sjögren’s syndrome, and (8) Future direction. Finally, we introduce a recently developed disease model of salivary gland inflammation and discuss future expectations for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss in Sjögren’s syndrome.

Inflammation associated with noise-induced hearing loss

Inflammation is a complex biological response to harmful stimuli including infection, tissue damage, and toxins. Thus, it is not surprising that cochlear damage by noise includes an inflammatory component. One mechanism by which inflammation is generated by tissue damage is the activation of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Many of the cellular receptors for DAMPS, including Toll-like receptors, NOD-like receptors, and DNA receptors, are also receptors for pathogens, and function in the innate immune system. DAMP receptors are known to be expressed by cochlear cells, and binding of molecules released by damaged cells to these receptors result in the activation of cell stress pathways. This leads to the generation of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines that recruit pro-inflammatory leukocytes. Extensive evidence indicates pro-inflammatory cytokines including TNF alpha and interleukin 1 beta, and chemokines including CCL2, are induced in the cochlea after noise exposure. The recruitment of macrophages into the cochlea has also been demonstrated. These provide substrates for noise damage to be enhanced by inflammation. Evidence is provided by the effectiveness of anti-inflammatory drugs in ameliorating noise-induced hearing loss. Involvement of inflammation provides a wide variety of additional anti-inflammatory and pro-resolution agents as potential pharmacological interventions in noise-induced hearing loss.

Emerging options in immune-mediated hearing loss

Objective

AIED (autoimmune inner ear disease) is an autoimmune process that leads to the dysfunction of the inner ear, resulting in fluctuating, audiovestibular symptoms. Although the pathogenesis is likely heterogeneous, immune processes within the inner ear ultimately lead to histopathologic changes and sensorineural hearing loss. This review will discuss the latest evidence on treatment options.

Methods

A literature search on articles pertaining to the treatment of autoimmune inner ear disease was performed on PubMed.

Results

Corticosteroid treatment continues to remain as first line therapy for AIED but long-term responsiveness is poor. Cytotoxic chemotherapies can be effective alternatives for steroid nonresponsive patients, but significant side effects may limit their use. Intratympanic steroid injections are beneficial and although there is not enough evidence currently to supplant oral steroid trial they may be a useful adjunct if steroid toxicity is an issue. The efficacy of biologic agents has been variable. Compared to placebo, etanercept does not improve the hearing improvement already attained by steroids alone. However, open pilot studies of other biologic agents show hearing improvements, improvements in tinnitus/aural fullness/vertigo, ability to wean steroid dependency, or benefits in steroid-resistant AIED.

Conclusion

There is currently not enough evidence that alternative treatments supersede the use of initial steroid treatment. Biologic agents and intratympanic steroid injections are relatively well tolerated and should be considered as adjunctive therapy. More studies on the efficacy of various biologics and more studies on the treatment of steroid resistant disease especially after initial benefit are still needed. For those who eventually lose their hearing, cochlear implantation remains as a viable option.

Level of Evidence

expert opinion.

Ear Involvement in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review of the Literature

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a multisystemic disease. The ear is a rare but recognized site of extraintestinal manifestations of IBD. In external ear, the more common manifestations of IBD are pyoderma gangrenosum, metastatic Crohn’s disease and relapsing polychondritis and the treatment includes corticosteroids and anti-TNF agents. Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is the most common ear disease in IBD and especially in patients with ulcerative colitis. In most cases of IBD patients with SNHL, the hearing loss is attributable to autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED). Diagnosis of AIED is based on clinical presentation, the demonstration of a progressive sensorineural hearing loss in periodic audiological tests, a response to immunosuppressive drugs and exclusion of other causes of SNHL. The only diagnostic test that is available for clinical use is the Otoblot test (Western blot for antibodies against 68 kD protein-inner ear antigens). Initial therapy is usually steroids, with a step up to anti-TNF-a therapy and cochlear implantations with failure of treatment. Furthermore, Cogan’s syndrome, a chronic disease characterized by deafness, vertigo keratitis and aortitis, has been associated with IBD and mainly with Crohn’s disease.

Sudden Sensorioneural Hearing Loss and Autoimmune Systemic Diseases

Introduction  Several authors have demonstrated the relationship between sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and systemic autoimmune diseases (SAD). Immune-mediated SNHL can rarely present as unilateral sudden SNHL and manifests itself in the contralateral ear only after years. It presents clinical relevance for being one of the few SNHL that may be reversible given that early and appropriate treatment is applied. Objective  The objective of this study is to describe the clinical presentations and audiological findings from patients with idiopathic sudden SNHL and SAD associated with a probable diagnosis of immune-mediated SNHL. Furthermore, we strive to estimate the prevalence of SAD in patients with sudden SNHL. Methods  This is an observational retrospective cohort. We have selected and studied patients with SAD. Revision of available literature on scientific repositories. Results  We evaluated 339 patients with sudden SNHL. Among them, 13 (3.83%) patients suffered from SAD. Three patients had bilateral involvement, a total of 16 ears. We evaluate and describe various clinical, epidemiological, and audiological aspects of this sample. Conclusion  In our sample of patients with sudden SNHL, the prevalence of SAD was found relevant. The majority had tinnitus and dizziness concomitant hearing loss, unilateral involvement and had experienced profound hearing loss at the time of the installation. In spite of instituted treatment, most cases showed no improvement in audiometric thresholds. Apparently, patients with sudden SNHL and SAD have a more severe initial impairment, higher percentage of bilateral, lower response to treatment, and worse prognosis than patients with sudden SNHL of unknown etiology.

Immune system of the inner ear as a novel therapeutic target for sensorineural hearing loss

Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is a common clinical condition resulting from dysfunction in one or more parts in the auditory pathway between the inner ear and auditory cortex. Despite the prevalence of SNHL, little is known about its etiopathology, although several mechanisms have been postulated including ischemia, viral infection or reactivation, and microtrauma. Immune-mediated inner ear disease has been introduced and accepted as one SNHL pathophysiology; it responds to immunosuppressive therapy and is one of the few reversible forms of bilateral SNHL. The concept of immune-mediated inner ear disease is straightforward and comprehensible, but criteria for clinical diagnosis and the precise mechanism of hearing loss have not been determined. Moreover, the therapeutic mechanisms of corticosteroids are unclear, leading to several misconceptions by both clinicians and investigators concerning corticosteroid therapy. This review addresses our current understanding of the immune system in the inner ear and its involvement in the pathophysiology in SNHL. Treatment of SNHL, including immune-mediated inner ear disorder, will be discussed with a focus on the immune mechanism and immunocompetent cells as therapeutic targets. Finally, possible interventions modulating the immune system in the inner ear to repair the tissue organization and improve hearing in patients with SNHL will be discussed. Tissue macrophages in the inner ear appear to be a potential target for modulating the immune response in the inner ear in the pathophysiology of SNHL.

Infliximab for autoimmune inner ear disease: case report and literature review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed (1) to report the long-term effects of infliximab, a murine monoclonal antibody directed against tumour necrosis factor-α, on autoimmune inner ear disease, and (2) to discuss dilemmas surrounding the long-term management of autoimmune inner ear disease.

CASE REPORT

A 49-year-old man presented with sudden-onset, left-sided, sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and vertigo. He was prescribed oral prednisolone, with benefit. Over several subsequent months, he experienced frequent relapses and progressive deterioration of high-frequency hearing bilaterally. Multiple agents failed to stabilise his condition. Following infliximab treatment, there was a documented and sustained improvement in his hearing and tinnitus. He stopped the treatment after 46 weeks, with rapid relapse of his condition. His hearing recovered quickly again after recommencing infliximab.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of prolonged infliximab use and potential side effects must be balanced against allowing the disease to take its course, with progressive deafness. Randomised controlled trials are required to assess infliximab's optimal duration of use, long-term efficacy and safety in the treatment of autoimmune inner ear disease.

Review of the biologic agents used for immune-mediated inner ear disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Immune-mediated inner ear disease (IMIED) is one of the few reversible forms of sensorineural hearing loss. Treatment is based on high-dose corticosteroids, although long-term therapy is associated with serious adverse effects; this has led to the use of other agents or different routes of administration such as transtympanic delivery. This study analyses the role of biological agents in IMIED management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PUBMED for studies that examined the response to treatment with different biological agents in patients with IMIED. The following data were extracted from the selected studies and entered into a standardised database: exclusion and inclusion criteria, characteristics of the patients studied, treatment, outcome measures and response rates achieved.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in this review. A TNF alpha inhibitor (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab) was used in 8 studies, an IL-1 antagonist (anakinra) was used in 3 studies and rituximab, an antibody directed against the CD20 surface antigen on B lymphocytes, was evaluated in 2 studies. Most studies achieved a hearing improvement or stabilisation in more than 70% of treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Biological agents can play a role in the management of patients with IMIED, at least in those patients who do not respond to conventional therapy or whose hearing is not stabilised. However, specially-designed randomised controlled clinical trials are needed to assess their effectiveness.