Efficacy of oral vs. intratympanic corticosteroids in sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Altered static and dynamic intrinsic brain activity in unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Introduction

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL) is a critical otologic emergency characterized by a rapid decline of at least 30 dB across three consecutive frequencies in the pure-tone audiogram within a 72-hour period. This audiological condition has been associated with alterations in brain cortical and subcortical structures, as well as changes in brain functional activities involving multiple networks. However, the extent of cerebral intrinsic brain activity disruption in SSHL remains poorly understood. The aimed of this study is to investigate intrinsic brain activity alterations in SSHL using static and dynamic fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (fALFF) analysis.

Methods

Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data were acquired from a cohort of SSHL patients (unilateral, n = 102) and healthy controls (n = 73). Static and dynamic fALFF methods were employed to analyze the acquired fMRI data, enabling a comprehensive examination of intrinsic brain activity changes in SSHL.

Results

Our analysis revealed significant differences in static fALFF patterns between SSHL patients and healthy controls. SSHL patients exhibited decreased fALFF in the left fusiform gyrus, left precentral gyrus, and right inferior frontal gyrus, alongside increased fALFF in the left inferior frontal gyrus, left superior frontal gyrus, and right middle temporal gyrus. Additionally, dynamic fALFF analysis demonstrated elevated fALFF in the right superior frontal gyrus and right middle frontal gyrus among SSHL patients. Intriguingly, we observed a positive correlation between static fALFF in the left fusiform gyrus and the duration of hearing loss, shedding light on potential temporal dynamics associated with intrinsic brain activity changes.

Discussion

The observed disruptions in intrinsic brain activity and temporal dynamics among SSHL patients provide valuable insights into the functional reorganization and potential compensatory mechanisms linked to hearing loss. These findings underscore the importance of understanding the underlying neural alterations in SSHL, which could pave the way for the development of targeted interventions and rehabilitation strategies aimed at optimizing SSHL management.

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.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing pharmacologic therapies in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Patients with hearing loss experience impaired quality of life, as well as emotional and financial consequences that affect both themselves and their families. Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a common but difficult to treat condition that has a sudden onset of ≤ 72 hour associated with various etiologies, with the majority of cases being idiopathic. There exists a wide range of therapeutic options, however, the uncertainty surrounding their comparative efficacy and safety makes selection of treatment difficult. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative effects of competing treatments for management of ISSNHL.

METHODS

A protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017073756). A detailed search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 8th, 2018 was carried out by an experienced information specialist. Grey literature was also searched. Screening full-text records, and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers, and disagreements were resolved through consensus or third party adjudication, while data was collected by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed to inform comparisons between interventions for a priori specified outcomes that included pure tone average (PTA) improvement and hearing recovery.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 1,138 citations, of which 613 remained for review after removal of duplicates. Of these, 23 publications describing 19 unique studies (total sample size of 1,527) met our a priori eligibility criteria, that were assessed to be at unclear or high risk of bias on several domains. We identified data on several interventions for ISSNHL therapy and were able to construct treatment networks consisting of six intervention groups that included placebo; intratympanic (IT) steroid; IT plus systemic steroid; per oral (PO) steroid; intravenous (IV) steroid; and IV plus PO steroid for our NMAs. IT plus systemic steroids demonstrated the largest difference in PTA improvement compared to placebo (25.85 dB, 95% CrI 7.18-40.58), followed by IV plus PO steroids (22.06 dB, 95% CrI 1.24-39.17), IT steroids (18.24 dB, 95% CrI 3.00-29.81). We observed that the difference of PTA improvement between each intervention and placebo diminished over time, attributed to spontaneous recovery. The binary outcomes of hearing recovery demonstrated similar relative ordering of interventions but were less sensitive than PTA improvement to capture the significant differences between interventions and placebo.

CONCLUSION

Unclear to high risk of bias trials rated IT plus systemic steroid treatment as the best among the six interventions compared, and all active treatments were better than placebo in improving PTA. However, it should be noted that certain comparisons were based on indirect evidence only or few studies of small sample size, and analyses were unable to control for steroid type and dosage. Given these limitations, further data originating from methodologically sound and rigorous trials with adequate reporting are needed to confirm our findings.