-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2022Patients with single-sided deafness can experience an ipsilateral disabling tinnitus that has a major impact on individuals' social communication and quality of life.... (Review)
Review
Patients with single-sided deafness can experience an ipsilateral disabling tinnitus that has a major impact on individuals' social communication and quality of life. Cochlear implants appear to be superior to conventional treatments to alleviate tinnitus in single-sided deafness. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of cochlear implants in single-sided deafness with disabling tinnitus when conventional treatments fail to alleviate tinnitus (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022353292). All published studies in PubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases until December 2021 were included. A total of 474 records were retrieved, 31 studies were included and were divided into two categories according to whether tinnitus was assessed as a primary complaint or not. In all studies, cochlear implantation, evaluated using subjective validated tools, succeeded in reducing tinnitus significantly. Objective evaluation tools were less likely to be used but showed similar results. A short-(3 months) and long-(up to 72 months) term tinnitus suppression was reported. When the cochlear implant is disactivated, complete residual tinnitus inhibition was reported to persist up to 24 h. The results followed a similar pattern in studies where tinnitus was assesed as a primary complaint or not. In conclusion, the present review confirmed the effectiveness of cochlear implantation in sustainably reducing disabling tinnitus in single-sided deafness patients.
PubMed: 36233532
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195664 -
CoDAS 2020this paper aims to identify the most used terminologies to designate the disproportional behavior to sounds in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and its relationship...
PURPOSE
this paper aims to identify the most used terminologies to designate the disproportional behavior to sounds in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and its relationship with the respective tools for its investigation, as well as its occurrence and outcomes.
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
the databases used were PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scielo and Lilacs. The keywords used were "autism", "hyperacusis" and "auditory perception", with the following combinations: "autism AND hyperacusis" and "autism AND auditory perception".
SELECTION CRITERIA
individuals diagnosed with ASD of any age group; available abstract; papers in English, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese; case series, prevalence and incidence studies, cohort and clinical trials.
DATA ANALYSIS
we analyzed studies with individuals diagnosed with ASD of any age group; reference in the title and/or summary of the occurrence of disproportional behavior to sounds, accepting the terms hyper-responsiveness, hypersensitivity and hyperacusis; summary available; papers in English, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese; series of cases, prevalence and incidence studies, cohort and clinical trials.
RESULTS
Of the 692 studies resulting from the consultation, 13 studies could achieve the established requirements.
CONCLUSION
The term auditory hypersensitivity was the most commonly used to designate disproportional behavior to sounds, followed by hyperacusis. There was no relationship between the terms and the respective research tool, and the questionnaires were the most used to designate the referred behavior, whose reported frequency was from 42.1% to 69.0%. The auditory behavior tests when performed showed the involvement of the auditory, afferent and efferent neural pathways.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Humans; Hyperacusis; Reflex, Acoustic; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 31994595
DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20192018287 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2018Professional musicians (PMs) are at high risk of developing hearing loss (HL) and other audiological symptoms such as tinnitus, hyperacusis, and diplacusis. The aim of...
Professional musicians (PMs) are at high risk of developing hearing loss (HL) and other audiological symptoms such as tinnitus, hyperacusis, and diplacusis. The aim of this systematic review is to (A) assess the risk of developing HL and audiological symptoms in PMs and (B) evaluate if different music genres (Pop/Rock Music-PR; Classical Music-CL) expose PMs to different levels of risk of developing such conditions. Forty-one articles including 4618 PMs were included in the study. HL was found in 38.6% PMs; prevalence was significantly higher among PR (63.5%) than CL (32.8%) PMs; HL mainly affected the high frequencies in the 3000-6000 Hz range and was symmetric in 68% PR PMs and in 44.5% CL PMs. Tinnitus was the most common audiological symptom, followed by hyperacusis and diplacusis. Tinnitus was almost equally distributed between PR and CL PMs; diplacusis was more common in CL than in PR PMs, while prevalence of hyperacusis was higher among PR PMs. Our review showed that PR musicians have a higher risk of developing HL compared to CL PMs; exposure to sounds of high frequency and intensity and absence of ear protection may justify these results. Difference in HL symmetry could be explained by the type of instruments used and consequent single-sided exposure.
Topics: Hearing Disorders; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced; Humans; Hyperacusis; Music; Occupational Diseases; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Sound; Tinnitus
PubMed: 30261653
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15102120 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Tinnitus affects 10% to 15% of the adult population, with about 20% of these experiencing symptoms that negatively affect quality of life. In England alone there are an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Tinnitus affects 10% to 15% of the adult population, with about 20% of these experiencing symptoms that negatively affect quality of life. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression. Hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices (amplification and sound generation within one device) are a component of many tinnitus management programmes and together with information and advice are a first line of management in audiology departments for someone who has tinnitus.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 July 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with acute or chronic subjective idiopathic tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved hearing aids, sound generators or combination hearing aids and compared them to waiting list control, placebo or education/information only with no device. We also included studies comparing hearing aids to sound generators, combination hearing aids to hearing aids, and combination hearing aids to sound generators.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity as measured as a global score on multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and significant adverse effects as indicated by an increase in self-reported tinnitus loudness. Our secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, symptoms of generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and adverse effects associated with wearing the device such as pain, discomfort, tenderness or skin irritation, or ear infections. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included eight studies (with a total of 590 participants). Seven studies investigated the effects of hearing aids, four combination hearing aids and three sound generators. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs and one had a cross-over design. In general, risk of bias was unclear due to lack of detail about sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was also little or no use of blinding.No data for our outcomes were available for any of our three main comparisons (comparing hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices with a waiting list control group, placebo or education/information only). Data for our additional comparisons (comparing these devices with each other) were also few, with limited potential for data pooling.Hearing aid only versus sound generator device onlyOne study compared patients fitted with sound generators versus those fitted with hearing aids and found no difference between them in their effects on our primary outcome, tinnitus symptom severity measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) at 3, 6 or 12 months (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Combination hearing aid versus hearing aid onlyThree studies compared combination hearing aids with hearing aids and measured tinnitus symptom severity using the THI or Tinnitus Functional Index. When we pooled the data we found no difference between them (standardised mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to 0.22; three studies; 114 participants) (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was again associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies.None of the studies measured the secondary outcomes of depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life as measured by a validated instrument, nor the newly developed core outcomes tinnitus intrusiveness, ability to ignore, concentration, quality of sleep and sense of control.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to support the superiority of sound therapy for tinnitus over waiting list control, placebo or education/information with no device. There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority or inferiority of any of the sound therapy options (hearing aid, sound generator or combination hearing aid) over each other. The quality of evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, was low. Using a combination device, hearing aid or sound generator might result in little or no difference in tinnitus symptom severity.Future research into the effectiveness of sound therapy in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.
Topics: Acoustic Stimulation; Adult; Hearing Aids; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sound; Tinnitus
PubMed: 30589445
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013094.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy Dec 2020Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic...
INTRODUCTION
Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize definitions, terminology, subsequent treatment outcomes, and characteristics associated with this subpopulation.
METHODS
A comprehensive SLR was conducted to identify studies, published from Jan 1995 to May 2019, which focused on insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans.
RESULTS
Thirty-five publications were identified, of which 22 described randomized controlled trials and open-label studies, and 13 described observational studies. Across studies, multiple objectives and a high amount of variability in methodologies and outcomes were noted. The most commonly applied measures of efficacy were headache pain freedom and pain relief at 2 h. Ten studies assessed efficacy of switching or optimizing treatment in patients with historical insufficient efficacy or tolerability to previous triptan treatment and demonstrated varying levels of success. Factors associated with increased risk of triptan insufficient efficacy included severe baseline headache severity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and depression.
CONCLUSIONS
Irrespective of the methodology or definition used to identify people with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans, study results support the assertion that a high unmet need remains for effective acute treatment of migraine.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Tryptamines
PubMed: 32990921
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01494-9