-
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2022Whether ketamine is as effective as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) among patients with major depressive episode remains unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Whether ketamine is as effective as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) among patients with major depressive episode remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze data about clinical efficacy and safety for ketamine and ECT in patients with major depressive episode.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text keywords from database inception through April 19, 2022, with no language limits. Two authors also manually and independently searched all relevant studies in US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar.
STUDY SELECTION
Included were studies that involved (1) a diagnosis of depression using standardized diagnostic criteria, (2) intervention/comparator groups consisting of ECT and ketamine, and (3) depressive symptoms as an efficacy outcome using standardized measures.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was completed independently by 2 extractors and cross-checked for errors. Hedges g standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for improvement in depressive symptoms. SMDs with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using fixed- or random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Efficacy outcomes included depression severity, cognition, and memory performance. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (eg, suicide attempts and deaths) and other adverse events.
RESULTS
Six clinical trials comprising 340 patients (n = 162 for ECT and n = 178 for ketamine) were included in the review. Six of 6 studies enrolled patients who were eligible to receive ECT, 6 studies were conducted in inpatient settings, and 5 studies were randomized clinical trials. The overall pooled SMD for depression symptoms for ECT when compared with ketamine was -0.69 (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.48; Cochran Q, P = .15; I2 = 39%), suggesting an efficacy advantage for ECT compared with ketamine for depression severity. Significant differences were not observed between groups for studies that assessed cognition/memory or serious adverse events. Both ketamine and ECT had unique adverse effect profiles (ie, ketamine: lower risks for headache and muscle pain; ECT: lower risks for blurred vision, vertigo, diplopia/nystagmus, and transient dissociative/depersonalization symptoms). Limitations included low to moderate methodological quality and underpowered study designs.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ECT may be superior to ketamine for improving depression severity in the acute phase, but treatment options should be individualized and patient-centered.
Topics: Humans; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Ketamine; Depressive Disorder, Major; Suicide, Attempted; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36260324
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.3352 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2023Dizziness and vertigo are among the most prevalent complaints in the elderly and have a major negative influence on (i) the perception of the quality of life; and (ii)... (Review)
Review
Dizziness and vertigo are among the most prevalent complaints in the elderly and have a major negative influence on (i) the perception of the quality of life; and (ii) the risk of falling. Due to population aging, particularly in wealthy nations, vertigo represents a growing issue and a serious public health concern. In order to approach the patient correctly and to offer the best treatment options, it is mandatory to identify vertigo's underlying causes. The aim of this paper was to identify the different etiologies of vertigo and possibly their frequency in the elderly population, by reviewing the scientific literature of the last decade (2012-2022). A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, searching the Medline database from January 2012 through to December 2022. The search identified 1025 candidate papers, but after the application of specific selection criteria, only five were considered for further analysis. A total of 2148 elderly patients (60-90 y old) presenting with vertigo were reported in the selected papers. A total of 3404 conditions were identified as the cause of vertiginous symptoms, (some patients presented multiple etiologies). All major diagnoses were categorized into different subgroups: the most common origin of vertigo was represented by audio-vestibular disorders (28.4%), followed by cardiovascular (20.4%) and neurological diseases (15.1%). Furthermore, 9.1% of patients were diagnosed with psychiatric conditions, whilst ophthalmologic and musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 7.5% and 6.3% of the cases respectively. Medication adverse effects and metabolic-related diseases were also considered among the causes. For 3.4% of cases the etiology remains unclear. Conclusions: Audio-vestibular disorders represent the most frequent cause of vertigo in the elderly. The etiologies affecting the vertigo patient must be defined in order to identify potential life-threatening conditions, such as cardiovascular and neurological disorders, which according to the data of this review constitute the second and third common causes of vertigo. A multidisciplinary strategy, involving different specialists (such as ENTs, Neurologists, Cardiologists, Geriatricians) is recommended for the correct assessment of these disorders.
PubMed: 36983184
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062182 -
The Canadian Journal of Neurological... Mar 2022Extensive studies indicate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) involves human sensory systems. A lack of discussion, however, exists given... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Extensive studies indicate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) involves human sensory systems. A lack of discussion, however, exists given the auditory-vestibular system involvement in CoV disease 2019 (COVID-19). The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the event rate (ER) of hearing loss, tinnitus, and dizziness caused by SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS
Databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley) and World Health Organization updates were searched using combined keywords: 'COVID-19,' 'SARS-CoV-2,' 'pandemic,' 'auditory dysfunction,' 'hearing loss,' 'tinnitus,' 'vestibular dysfunction,' 'dizziness,' 'vertigo,' and 'otologic symptoms.'
RESULTS
Twelve papers met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. These papers were single group prospective, cross-sectional, or retrospective studies on otolaryngologic, neurologic, or general clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and had used subjective assessments for data collection (case histories/medical records). The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate that the ER of hearing loss (3.1%, CIs: 0.01-0.09), tinnitus (4.5%, CIs: 0.012-0.153), and dizziness (12.2%, CIs: 0.070-0.204) is statistically significant in patients with COVID-19 (Z ≤ -4.469, p ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
COVID-19 can cause hearing loss, tinnitus, and dizziness. These findings, however, should be interpreted with caution given insufficient evidence and heterogeneity among studies. Well-designed studies and follow-up assessments on otologic symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 using standard objective tests are recommended.
Topics: COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dizziness; Hearing Loss; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 33843530
DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2021.63 -
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 -
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 -
JAMA Neurology Sep 2022Acute vertigo can be disabling. Antihistamines and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed as "vestibular suppressants," but their efficacy is unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Acute vertigo can be disabling. Antihistamines and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed as "vestibular suppressants," but their efficacy is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of antihistamines and benzodiazepines in the treatment of acute vertigo from any underlying cause.
DATA SOURCES
We searched the PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to January 14, 2019, without language restrictions. Bibliographies of the included studies and relevant reviews were also screened.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing antihistamine or benzodiazepine use with another comparator, placebo, or no intervention for patients with a duration of acute vertigo for 2 weeks or less. Studies of healthy volunteers, prophylactic treatment, or induced vertigo were excluded, as were studies that compared 2 medications from the same class.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 authors independently for each study. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The predefined primary outcome was change in 10- or 100-point vertigo or dizziness visual analog scale (VAS) scores at 2 hours after treatment. Secondary outcomes included change in nausea VAS scores at 2 hours, use of rescue medication at 2 hours, and improvement or resolution of vertigo at 1 week or 1 month.
RESULTS
Of the 27 trials identified in the systematic review, 17 contributed to the quantitative meta-analysis and involved a total of 1586 participants. Seven trials with a total of 802 participants evaluated the primary outcome of interest: single-dose antihistamines resulted in significantly more improvement on 100-point VAS scores compared with benzodiazepines (difference, 16.1 [95% CI, 7.2 to 25.0]) but not compared with other active comparators (difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -6.1 to 11.5]). At 1 week and 1 month, neither daily benzodiazepines nor antihistamines were reported to be superior to placebo. RCTs comparing the immediate effects of medications (at 2 hours) after a single dose generally had a low risk of bias, but those evaluating 1-week and 1-month outcomes had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Moderately strong evidence suggests that single-dose antihistamines provide greater vertigo relief at 2 hours than single-dose benzodiazepines. Furthermore, the available evidence did not support an association of benzodiazepine use with improvement in any outcomes for acute vertigo. Other evidence suggested that daily antihistamine use may not benefit patients with acute vertigo. Larger randomized trials comparing both antihistamines and benzodiazepines with placebo could better clarify the relative efficacy of these medications.
Topics: Benzodiazepines; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Vertigo
PubMed: 35849408
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.1858 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Oct 2022Patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) present with dizziness, cervical spine dysfunctions, and postural imbalance, symptoms that can significantly impact their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) present with dizziness, cervical spine dysfunctions, and postural imbalance, symptoms that can significantly impact their daily functioning.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with CGD.
METHODS
Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (last search 15 May 2021). Outcome measures included dizziness, cervical spine, and balance parameters. Cochrane standard methodological procedures were used and included the RoB 2.0 and GRADE. Where possible, RCTs were pooled for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs (n = 898 patients) of high (two RCTs), moderate (five RCTs), and low (six RCTs) methodological quality were analyzed. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Only three RCTs specified the cause of CGD. They showed inconsistent findings for the effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with traumatic CGD. Manual therapy and manual therapy combined with exercise therapy may reduce CGD, cervical spine, and balance dysfunctions.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate quality of evidence that manual therapy reduces CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms. When manual therapy is combined with exercise therapy, the positive effect on CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms is even stronger. However, the quality of the evidence here is very low.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Dizziness; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Vertigo
PubMed: 35383538
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2022.2033044 -
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 -
Audiology & Neuro-otology 2022Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is...
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is thought to be specifically effective for Ménière's disease, no evidence for a benefit from the use of betahistine exists, despite its widespread use. Reassessment of the effect of betahistine for Ménière's disease is now warranted.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and additional sources for published and unpublished trials, in which betahistine was compared to placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our outcomes involved vertigo, significant adverse effect (upper gastrointestinal discomfort), hearing loss, tinnitus, aural fullness, other adverse effects, and disease-specific health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies: 5 studies used a crossover design and the remaining 5 were parallel-group RCTs. One study with a low risk of bias found no significant difference between the betahistine groups and placebo with respect to vertigo after a long-term follow-up period. No significant difference in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal discomfort was found in 2 studies (low-certainty evidence). No differences in hearing loss, tinnitus, or well-being and disease-specific health-related quality of life were found (low- to very low-certainty of evidence). Data on aural fullness could not be extracted. No significant difference between the betahistine and the placebo groups (low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated in the other adverse effect outcome with respect to dull headache. The pooled risk ratio for other adverse effect in the long term demonstrated a lower risk in favor of placebo over betahistine.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality studies evaluating the effect of betahistine on patients with Ménière's disease are lacking. However, one study with low risk of bias found no evidence of a difference in the effect of betahistine on the primary outcome, vertigo, in patients with Ménière's disease when compared to placebo. The main focus of future research should be on the use of comparable outcome measures by means of patient-reported outcome measures.
Topics: Betahistine; Deafness; Humans; Meniere Disease; Syndrome; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 34233329
DOI: 10.1159/000515821