Tailored multifactorial intervention to improve dizziness symptoms and quality of life, balance and gait in dizziness sufferers aged over 50 years: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD)

BACKGROUND

Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared any non-pharmacological intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD, and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: Few randomised controlled trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of different treatments for PPPD compared to no treatment (or placebo). Of the few studies we identified, only one followed up participants for at least three months, therefore most were not eligible for inclusion in this review.  We identified one study from South Korea that compared the use of transcranial direct current stimulation to a sham procedure in 24 people with PPPD. This is a technique that involves electrical stimulation of the brain with a weak current, through electrodes that are placed onto the scalp. This study provided some information on the occurrence of adverse effects, and also on disease-specific quality of life at three months of follow-up. The other outcomes of interest in this review were not assessed. As this is a single, small study we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the numeric results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Further work is necessary to determine whether any non-pharmacological interventions may be effective for the treatment of PPPD and to assess whether they are associated with any potential harms. As this is a chronic disease, future trials should follow up participants for a sufficient period of time to assess whether there is a persisting impact on the severity of the disease, rather than only observing short-term effects.

Predicting an Unfavorable Course of Dizziness in Older Patients

PURPOSE

Because dizziness in older people is often chronic and can substantially affect daily functioning, it is important to identify those at risk for an unfavorable course of dizziness to optimize their care. We aimed to develop and externally validate a prediction model for an unfavorable course of dizziness in older patients in primary care, and to construct an easy-to-use risk prediction tool.

METHODS

We used data from 2 prospective cohorts: a development cohort with 203 patients aged 65 years or older who consulted their primary care physician for dizziness and had substantial dizziness-related impairment (Dizziness Handicap Inventory [DHI] ≥30), and a validation cohort with 415 patients aged 65 years or older who consulted their primary care physician for dizziness of any severity. An unfavorable course was defined as presence of substantial dizziness-related impairment (DHI ≥30) after 6 months.

RESULTS

Prevalence of an unfavorable course of dizziness was 73.9% in the development cohort and 43.6% in the validation cohort. Predictors in the final model were the score on the screening version of the DHI, age, history of arrhythmia, and looking up as a provoking factor. The model showed good calibration and fair discrimination (area under the curve = 0.77). On external validation, discriminative ability remained stable (area under the curve = 0.78). The constructed risk score was strongly correlated with the prediction model. Performance measures for risk score cut-off values are presented to determine the optimal cut-off point for clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an easy-to-use risk score for dizziness-related impairment in primary care. The risk score, consisting of only 4 predictors, will help primary care physicians identify patients at high risk for an unfavorable course of dizziness.

Reducing the burden of dizziness in middle-aged and older people: A multifactorial, tailored, single-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dizziness is common among older people and is associated with a cascade of debilitating symptoms, such as reduced quality of life, depression, and falls. The multifactorial aetiology of dizziness is a major barrier to establishing a clear diagnosis and offering effective therapeutic interventions. Only a few multidisciplinary interventions of dizziness have been conducted to date, all of a pilot nature and none tailoring the intervention to the specific causes of dizziness. Here, we aimed to test the hypothesis that a multidisciplinary dizziness assessment followed by a tailored multifaceted intervention would reduce dizziness handicap and self-reported dizziness as well as enhance balance and gait in people aged 50 years and over with dizziness symptoms.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a 6-month, single-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial in community-living people aged 50 years and over who reported dizziness in the past year. We excluded individuals currently receiving treatment for their dizziness, those with degenerative neurological conditions including cognitive impairment, those unable to walk 20 meters, and those identified at baseline assessment with conditions that required urgent treatment. Our team of geriatrician, vestibular neuroscientist, psychologist, exercise physiologist, study coordinator, and baseline assessor held case conferences fortnightly to discuss and recommend appropriate therapy (or therapies) for each participant, based on their multidisciplinary baseline assessments. A total of 305 men and women aged 50 to 92 years (mean [SD] age: 67.8 [8.3] years; 62% women) were randomly assigned to either usual care (control; n = 151) or to a tailored, multifaceted intervention (n = 154) comprising one or more of the following: a physiotherapist-led vestibular rehabilitation programme (35% [n = 54]), an 8-week internet-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (19% [n = 29]), a 6-month Otago home-based exercise programme (24% [n = 37]), and/or medical management (40% [n = 62]). We were unable to identify a cause of dizziness in 71 participants (23% of total sample). Primary outcome measures comprised dizziness burden measured with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) score, frequency of dizziness episodes recorded with monthly calendars over the 6-month follow-up, choice-stepping reaction time (CSRT), and gait variability. Data from 274 participants (90%; 137 per group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At trial completion, the DHI scores in the intervention group (pre and post mean [SD]: 25.9 [19.2] and 20.4 [17.7], respectively) were significantly reduced compared with the control group (pre and post mean [SD]: 23.0 [15.8] and 21.8 [16.4]), when controlling for baseline scores (mean [95% CI] difference between groups [baseline adjusted]: -3.7 [-6.2 to -1.2]; p = 0.003). There were no significant between-group differences in dizziness episodes (relative risk [RR] [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.65 to 1.17]; p = 0.360), CSRT performance (mean [95% CI] difference between groups [baseline adjusted]: -15 [-40 to 10]; p = 0.246), and step-time variability during gait (mean [95% CI] difference between groups [baseline adjusted]: -0.001 [-0.002 to 0.001]; p = 0.497). No serious intervention-related adverse events occurred. Study limitations included the low initial dizziness severity of the participants and the only fair uptake of the falls clinic (medical management) and the CBT interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifactorial tailored approach for treating dizziness was effective in reducing dizziness handicap in community-living people aged 50 years and older. No difference was seen on the other primary outcomes. Our findings therefore support the implementation of individualized, multifaceted evidence-based therapies to reduce self-perceived disability associated with dizziness in middle-aged and older people.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000379819.