No abstract

Objective: The relationship of cognitive dysfunction and vestibular dysfunction has been established by various studies. However, the available Patient-Reported Outcome Measures questionnaires that address the main vestibular complaint fail to highlight this domain of dysfunction in this patient population. The objective of this study was to quantify and compare cognitive impairment using a validated cognitive questionnaire across several vestibular diagnoses. Study Design: Cross-sectional study of 186 patients presenting to a tertiary care vestibular clinic with a diagnosis of vestibular migraine, Meniere’s disease (MD), benign positional paroxysmal vertigo, or persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD). Patients completed the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). Results: Mean CFQ scores for this cohort were significantly higher than similarly aged published controls (34.9/100 versus 31.3/100; p < 0.01; mean age, 45 years) as well as published controls between 65 and 74 years of age (34.9/100 versus 31.2/100; p < 0.05). Patients with PPPD or combined vestibular migraine and MD scored the highest on the CFQ and significantly higher than controls (45.1/100, p = 0.001; and 44.1/100, p = 0.006, respectively). Patients with benign positional paroxysmal vertigo had lower scores than normal controls. There is a weak but significant correlation between CFQ and DHI (r = 0.31; p < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression shows that CFQ scores were largely driven by the duration of symptoms (p < 0.001), type of diagnosis (notably PPPD; p = 0.026), and DHI (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results indicate that cognitive impairment is prevalent with chronic vestibular disorders, even in peripheral disorders such as MD. The duration of vestibular symptoms before diagnosis (and management), as well as certain etiologies, may play a bigger role in cognitive disability than age. This is not currently well-addressed in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures questionnaires and may be overlooked at the time of the diagnosis. Appropriate identification may help tailor treatment, namely rehabilitation programs, to individual patients.

Objective: Quantify the benefit of cochlear implantation (CI) for tinnitus relief among individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched through July 10, 2019. Search strategies used a combination of subject headings (e.g., MeSH in PubMed) and keywords for the following three concepts: single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation, and tinnitus. Study Selection: English articles that reported the preintervention (baseline) tinnitus-related patient-reported outcome measures (e.g., Tinnitus Handicap Inventory [THI] and Visual Analog Scale [VAS] for loudness) in patients with SSD that underwent CI were included. Data Extraction: Number of patients, mean age, etiology of hearing loss, duration of deafness, baseline and follow-up THI and VAS scores. Data Synthesis: A total of 17 studies met inclusion criteria encompassing 247 patients with SSD receiving a cochlear implant (mean age 50.2 yr, range 23–71). For THI, CI resulted in a mean difference of –35.4 points [95% CI –55.8 to –15.0, p < 0.001]. VAS decreased by –4.6 points [CI –6.0 to –3.3, p < 0.001]. A weighted proportion of 14.9% [CI 6.4–26.1] of patients experienced complete resolution of tinnitus, while 74.5% [CI 63.1–84.5] experienced partial improvement; 7.6% [CI 4.1–12.6] of patients had no change in severity, and 3.0% [CI 1.0–6.7] experienced worsening of their tinnitus. Conclusions: On both THI and VAS, patients reported significant reduction in their scores, representing an overall improvement in tinnitus severity while wearing the cochlear implant. Most patients with SSD will experience partial improvement or complete resolution of tinnitus with a cochlear implant.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE In an era of increasing polypharmacy, adverse drug effects such as ototoxicity have significant public health implications. Despite the availability of evidence, many health care professionals may not know the risk of ototoxicity in common medications. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive, easy to use, ototoxic profile of medications with an assessment of supporting evidence. METHODS Medications of interest were identified through adverse drug reaction reports derived from Micromedex (IBM), Lexicomp (Wolters Kluwer), and the textbook, Drug Induced Diseases: Prevention, Detection, and Management. Additional evidence was identified though a query of PubMed and the Cochrane database. Evidence of causality was graded according to the following: A (randomized, controlled clinical trials), B (nonrandomized clinical trials, prospective observational studies, cohort studies, retrospective studies, case-controlled studies, and/or postmarketing surveillance studies), and C (case reports/case series). RESULTS A total of 194 systemically administered medications associated with ototoxicity were identified, most commonly antimicrobials (53), psychotropics (21), antihypertensive/antiarrhythmics (19), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (18), and antineoplastics (16). There was evidence of cochleotoxicity in 165 medications (evidence grading A [22], B [77], C [69]), vestibulotoxicity in 100 medications (evidence grading A [23], B [47], and C [30]), and dizziness in 142 medications (evidence grading A [50], B [76], and C [16]). In addition, a review of the evidence of ototoxicity in ototopical medications is also reviewed. CONCLUSION The effect and severity of ototoxicity can vary immensely depending on pharmacological and individual patient risk factors. The intent of this comprehensive review was to help health care providers of all sectors obtain a deeper knowledge of drug-induced ototoxicity to make more informed management decisions for their patients.