-
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... Aug 2021Withdrawal from psychoactive medication such as quetiapine is a well-documented phenomenon. Despite the extensive use of quetiapine, there have been few studies into the...
OBJECTIVE
Withdrawal from psychoactive medication such as quetiapine is a well-documented phenomenon. Despite the extensive use of quetiapine, there have been few studies into the presence of discontinuation symptoms. We therefore performed a systematic review of published literature for evidence of quetiapine withdrawal or symptoms associated with discontinuation.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO for articles containing the terms 'Quetiapine' AND 'withdraw' OR 'discontinue'. We included all study types that reported on somatic withdrawal symptoms and had no language restrictions. We excluded studies where there was withdrawal from multiple medications or any other psychoactive substance, or where the only symptoms were psychological such as rebound psychosis or craving.
RESULTS
We included 13 papers, all of which were individual case reports. The quality of the individual case reports was sub-optimal, as assessed by the CARE Case Report Guidelines. There was an association between rapid cessation of quetiapine and onset of somatic symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, agitation, restlessness, diaphoresis, irritability, anxiety, dysphoria, sleep disturbance, insomnia, tachycardia, hypertension and dizziness. Three studies also reported the onset of a withdrawal dyskinesia characterised by abnormal choreiform movements as well as confusion and speech disturbance in some cases. However, these findings were limited by the number and quality of case reports identified.
CONCLUSION
Discontinuation symptoms are an uncommon side effect of quetiapine cessation, which may have clinical implications. Clinicians should therefore be alert to the possibility of quetiapine withdrawal in individuals who present with somatic symptoms or choreiform movements. However, large prospective studies are required to clarify this association.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 33059460
DOI: 10.1177/0004867420965693 -
Journal of Neurology Nov 2021Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo is one of the most common vestibular diseases, especially in the elderly. Although the treatment of BPPV is relatively successful,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo is one of the most common vestibular diseases, especially in the elderly. Although the treatment of BPPV is relatively successful, many patients suffer recurrence after treatment. Therefore, identifying potential risk factors for BPPV recurrence may help improve treatment outcome and patient prognosis. However, some related risk factors for BPPV recurrence are relatively controversial and poorly studied. This meta-analysis aims to identify potential risk factors associated with BPPV recurrence, thereby reducing the recurrence rate of BPPV and improving the prognosis of patients.
METHODS
This meta-analysis was conducted through systematically searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible English original studies published up to June 2020. All search results were reviewed based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated the pooled odds ratios (ORs) or the mean differences (MDs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the effects of included risk factors on BPPV recurrence.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies involving 3060 BPPV patients published between 2010 and 2019 were finally included, including six prospective studies and eight retrospective studies, with a NOS score ranged from 6 to 9. Our pooled results of this meta-analysis suggested that the recurrence of BPPV was closely related to female gender (OR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.17-1.74; P = 0.0004), hypertension (OR = 2.61; 95% CI 1.22-5.59; P = 0.01), diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.62; 95% CI 1.25-5.48; P = 0.01), hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.23-2.09; P = 0.0006), osteoporosis (OR = 1.72; 95% CI 1.03-2.88; P = 0.04) and vitamin D deficiency (MD = - 3.29; 95% CI - 5.32 to - 1.26; P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicated that female gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, and vitamin D deficiency were risk factors for BPPV recurrence. However, the effects of other potential risk factors including advanced age, migraine, head trauma, and Menière's disease on BPPV recurrence need further investigations. Furthermore, most studies included in this meta-analysis were performed in Asia, so our results cannot easily be extended to the whole world population. Therefore, more large-scale prospective studies in different countries are required to further investigate these risk factors.
Topics: Aged; Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo; Female; Humans; Prospective Studies; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32839838
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-10175-0 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2023History and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
History and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings.
METHODS
This study involved a patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed.
RESULTS
From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination-five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%-61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%-98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis-four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%-23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%-99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia-10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%-87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%-96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs-four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%-36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%-99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)-17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%-85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%-95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus-six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%-74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%-74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type-16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%-60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%-99.7%, moderate]); test of skew-15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%-35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%-98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)-14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%-97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%-91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)-five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%-100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%-93.0%, high).
CONCLUSIONS
Most neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dizziness; Stroke; Vertigo; Emergency Service, Hospital; Nystagmus, Pathologic; Physical Examination
PubMed: 36453134
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14630 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used in the management of this condition, including betahistine, diuretics, antiviral medications and corticosteroids. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these treatments may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.
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 14 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing betahistine, diuretics, antihistamines, antivirals or systemic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (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) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 848 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: betahistine, diuretics, antivirals and corticosteroids. We did not identify any evidence on antihistamines. Betahistine Seven RCTs (548 participants) addressed this comparison. However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes as not all outcomes were considered by every study, and studies that did report the same outcome used different time points for follow-up, or assessed the outcome using different methods. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Some data were available for each of our primary outcomes, but the evidence was low- or very low-certainty throughout. One study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' at 6 to ≤ 12 months, and another study reported this outcome at > 12 months. Four studies reported on the change in vertigo, but again all used different methods of assessment (vertigo frequency, or a global score of vertigo severity) or different time points. A single study reported on serious adverse events. Diuretics Two RCTs addressed this comparison. One considered the use of isosorbide (220 participants), and the other used a combination of amiloride hydrochloride and hydrochlorothiazide (80 participants). Again, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes, as only one study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' (at 6 to ≤ 12 months), one study reported on change in vertigo (at 3 to < 6 months) and neither study assessed serious adverse events. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. The evidence was all very low-certainty. Other pharmacological interventions We also identified one study that assessed antivirals (24 participants), and one study that assessed corticosteroids (16 participants). The evidence for these interventions was all very low-certainty. Again, serious adverse events were not considered by either study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare these interventions to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Meniere Disease; Tinnitus; Betahistine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Vertigo; Diuretics; Histamine Antagonists
PubMed: 36827524
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015171.pub2 -
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty... Sep 2021Insomnia is a common disorder associated with a substantial burden of illness, particularly in older adults. To compare the efficacy and safety of lemborexant with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Insomnia is a common disorder associated with a substantial burden of illness, particularly in older adults. To compare the efficacy and safety of lemborexant with specified other insomnia treatments through a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Medline and Embase were systematically searched from inception to February 2019 and updated with a targeted search of PubMed for pivotal trials in March 2021. Randomized controlled trials in adults with primary insomnia were included if they reported results following at least 1 week of treatment. Interventions of interest were specified as lemborexant, suvorexant, benzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonists (also called Z-drugs [zolpidem, eszopiclone, zaleplon, zopiclone]), trazodone, and ramelteon. Efficacy outcomes included wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep efficiency (SE), latency to persistent sleep (LPS)/sleep onset latency (SOL), total sleep time (TST) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Bayesian NMA were performed at predetermined time intervals approximating 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs), and specified AEs (dizziness, somnolence, and falls). Subgroup analysis was conducted in the older population. 45 studies were included in the NMA. At 4 weeks, lemborexant had the highest probability of being the best treatment for 3 of the 4 outcomes measured objectively by polysomnography-TST, LPS, and SE-and was ranked second to suvorexant on WASO. Eszopiclone was highly ranked for subjectively measured SOL and ISI at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Lemborexant was rated more highly than suvorexant in subjective measures of WASO, TST, and SOL at 4 weeks (the differences were not statistically significant). No statistically significant interactions between treatment effect and older subpopulations were found, indicating that the treatment effect was similar in older and adult populations. The safety profile of lemborexant was broadly similar to the other treatments for SAEs and withdrawals due to AEs. A limitation is the age of some of the included studies (3 were published in 1990 or earlier). A further limitation is the lack of stratification of recommended doses. If the doses used in the study publications do not reflect doses used in clinical practice, this could potentially bias the results. Lemborexant was ranked highest of the treatments studied on 3 out of the 4 objectively measured insomnia efficacy outcomes, with a safety profile broadly similar to other insomnia treatments. This work was funded by Eisai Inc., which was involved with all stages of the study and analysis. McElroy, O'Leary, and Adena are consultants with Datalytics Pty Ltd., which was paid by Eisai Inc. for conducting the literature review and analysis. They were not financially compensated for collaborative efforts on publication-related activities. Campbell, Tahami Monfared, and Meier are employed by Eisai Inc. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus Virtual, October 20-23, 2020 and at the AGS Virtual Annual Scientific Meeting 2021, May 13-15, 2021.
Topics: Humans; Orexin Receptor Antagonists; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34121443
DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.21011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dizziness; Chronic Disease; Republic of Korea
PubMed: 36912784
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015333.pub2 -
BMC Geriatrics Nov 2020Vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB) are among the most relevant contributors to the burden of disability among older adults living in the community and...
BACKGROUND
Vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB) are among the most relevant contributors to the burden of disability among older adults living in the community and associated with immobility, limitations of activities of daily living and decreased participation. The aim of this study was to identify the quality of evidence of physical therapy interventions that address mobility and participation in older patients with VDB and to characterize the used primary and secondary outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search via MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro, forward citation tracing and hand search was conducted initially in 11/2017 and updated in 7/2019. We included individual and cluster-randomized controlled trials and trials with quasi-experimental design, published between 2007 and 2017/2019 and including individuals ≥65 years with VDB. Physical therapy and related interventions were reviewed with no restrictions to outcome measurement. Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, data extraction and critical appraisal was conducted by two independent researchers. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of interventions and outcome measures. Therefore, a narrative synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 20 randomized and 2 non-randomized controlled trials with 1876 patients met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of complexity of interventions, outcome measures and methodological quality. Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) was examined in twelve studies, computer-assisted VR (CAVR) in five, Tai Chi as VR (TCVR) in three, canal repositioning manoeuvres (CRM) in one and manual therapy (MT) in one study. Mixed effects were found regarding body structure/function and activities/participation. Quality of life and/or falls were assessed, with no differences between groups. VR is with moderate quality of evidence superior to usual care to improve balance, mobility and symptoms.
CONCLUSION
To treat older individuals with VDB, VR in any variation and in addition to CRMs seems to be effective. High-quality randomized trials need to be conducted to inform clinical decision making.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017080291 .
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Dizziness; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Vertigo
PubMed: 33228601
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01899-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, however their value remains unclear. Intratympanic injections of corticosteroids have become increasingly common in the treatment of ISSNHL.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of intratympanic corticosteroids in people with ISSNHL.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2021, Issue 9); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 September 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with ISSNHL and follow-up of over a week. Intratympanic corticosteroids were given as primary or secondary treatment (after failure of systemic therapy).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, including GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was change in hearing threshold with pure tone audiometry. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people whose hearing improved, final hearing threshold, speech audiometry, frequency-specific hearing changes and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 studies, comprising 2133 analysed participants. Some studies had more than two treatment arms and were therefore relevant to several comparisons. Studies investigated intratympanic corticosteroids as either primary (initial) therapy or secondary (rescue) therapy after failure of initial treatment. 1. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus systemic corticosteroids as primary therapy We identified 16 studies (1108 participants). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no improvement in the change in hearing threshold (mean difference (MD) -5.93 dB better, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.61 to -4.26; 10 studies; 701 participants; low-certainty). We found little to no difference in the proportion of participants whose hearing was improved (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 14 studies; 972 participants; moderate-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no difference in the final hearing threshold (MD -3.31 dB, 95% CI -6.16 to -0.47; 7 studies; 516 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may increase the number of people who experience vertigo or dizziness (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.54; 1 study; 250 participants; low-certainty) and probably increases the number of people with ear pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 6.22 to 39.49; 2 studies; 289 participants; moderate-certainty). It also resulted in persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 3.9%; 3 studies; 359 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo/dizziness at the time of injection (1% to 21%, 3 studies; 197 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (10.5% to 27.1%; 2 studies; 289 participants; low-certainty). 2. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as primary therapy We identified 10 studies (788 participants). Combined therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -8.55 dB better, 95% CI -12.48 to -4.61; 6 studies; 435 participants; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain as to whether combined therapy changes the proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 10 studies; 788 participants; very low-certainty). Combined therapy may result in slightly lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds but the evidence is very uncertain, and it is not clear whether the change would be important to patients (MD -9.11 dB, 95% CI -16.56 to -1.67; 3 studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received combined therapy. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 5.5%; 5 studies; 474 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 0% to 8.1%; 4 studies; 341 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (13.5%; 1 study; 73 participants; very low-certainty). 3. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus no treatment or placebo as secondary therapy We identified seven studies (279 participants). Intratympanic therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -9.07 dB better, 95% CI -11.47 to -6.66; 7 studies; 280 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 5.55, 95% CI 2.89 to 10.68; 6 studies; 232 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds (MD -11.09 dB, 95% CI -17.46 to -4.72; 5 studies; 203 participants; low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received intratympanic injection. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 4.2%; 5 studies; 185 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 6.7% to 33%; 3 studies; 128 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (0%; 1 study; 44 participants; very low-certainty). 4. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as secondary therapy We identified one study with 76 participants. Change in hearing threshold was not reported. Combined therapy may result in a higher proportion with hearing improvement, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.55; very low-certainty). Adverse effects were poorly reported with only data for persistent tympanic membrane perforation (rate 8.1%, very low-certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the evidence in this review is low- or very low-certainty, therefore it is likely that further studies may change our conclusions. For primary therapy, intratympanic corticosteroids may have little or no effect compared with systemic corticosteroids. There may be a slight benefit from combined treatment when compared with systemic treatment alone, but the evidence is uncertain. For secondary therapy, there is low-certainty evidence that intratympanic corticosteroids, when compared to no treatment or placebo, may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved, but may only have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold. It is very uncertain whether there is additional benefit from combined treatment over systemic steroids alone. Although adverse effects were poorly reported, the different risk profiles of intratympanic treatment (including tympanic membrane perforation, pain and dizziness/vertigo) and systemic treatment (for example, blood glucose problems) should be considered when selecting appropriate treatment.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dizziness; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Pain; Tympanic Membrane Perforation; Vertigo
PubMed: 35867413
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008080.pub2 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2023We evaluated interventions to facilitate recovery in children, adolescents and adults with a sport-related concussion (SRC).
OBJECTIVES
We evaluated interventions to facilitate recovery in children, adolescents and adults with a sport-related concussion (SRC).
DESIGN
Systematic review including risk of bias (modified Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network tool).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, SPORTDiscus and Scopus searched until March 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
(1) Original research including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, cohort, comparative effectiveness studies; (2) focus on SRC; (3) English; (4) peer-reviewed and (5) evaluated treatment.
RESULTS
6533 studies were screened, 154 full texts reviewed and 13 met inclusion (10 RCTs, 1 quasi-experimental and 2 cohort studies; 1 high-quality study, 7 acceptable and 5 at high risk of bias). Interventions, comparisons, timing and outcomes varied, precluding meta-analysis. For adolescents and adults with dizziness, neck pain and/or headaches >10 days following concussion, individualised cervicovestibular rehabilitation may decrease time to return to sport compared with rest followed by gradual exertion (HR 3.91 (95% CI 1.34 to 11.34)) and when compared with a subtherapeutic intervention (HR 2.91 (95% CI 1.01 to 8.43)). For adolescents with vestibular symptoms/impairments, vestibular rehabilitation may decrease time to medical clearance (vestibular rehab group 50.2 days (95% CI 39.9 to 60.4) compared with control 58.4 (95% CI 41.7 to 75.3) days). For adolescents with persisting symptoms >30 days, active rehabilitation and collaborative care may decrease symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
Cervicovestibular rehabilitation is recommended for adolescents and adults with dizziness, neck pain and/or headaches for >10 days. Vestibular rehabilitation (for adolescents with dizziness/vestibular impairments >5 days) and active rehabilitation and/or collaborative care (for adolescents with persisting symptoms >30 days) may be of benefit.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Humans; Brain Concussion; Dizziness; Headache; Medicine; Neck Pain
PubMed: 37316188
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-106685