Drug-Induced Ototoxicity: Diagnosis and Monitoring

Campbell, Kathleen C.M.; Prell, Colleen G. Le

doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0629-8

Cited by 52 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 154 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to monitoring noise-induced damage to the OHCs, a common strategy for monitoring OHC function is the use of DPOAE tests. Not only are DPOAEs well known for use identifying OHC damage due to cisplatin or aminoglycoside treatments (for recent review, see Campbell and Le Prell 2018), DPOAEs have shown high sensitivity to noise injury with deficits in DPOAE amplitude reportedly associated with occupational noise (Seixas et al 2004;Korres et al 2009;Seixas et al 2012;Boger, Sampaio, and Oliveira 2017), recreational music player use (Santaolalla Montoya et al 2008;Lee et al 2014) and military service (de Souza Chelminski Barreto et al 2011). Observations that noise-induced deficits in DPOAE and click-evoked otoacoustic emission (CEOAE) thresholds significantly exceeded noise-induced TTS have been used to suggest that OAEs are a more sensitive measure of noise injury than the audiogram itself .…”

Section: Effects Of Noise On Cochlear Hair Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exposure to loud sound has the potential to damage cells in the inner ear. It has long been known that the outer hair cells (OHCs) are particularly vulnerable to noise injury (Wang, Hirose, and Liberman 2002; for review, see Hu 2012), as well as other diverse insults such as occupational chemical exposure (for review, see Morata and Johnson 2012) and ototoxic drugs including aminoglycoside antibiotics and chemotherapeutics (for review, see Campbell and Le Prell 2018). More recently, it has become clear that the synapses connecting the inner hair cells (IHCs) to the auditory nerve dendrites are also vulnerable to loss as a consequence of noise (for review, see Kujawa and Liberman 2015), aminoglycoside antibiotics (Hinojosa and Lerner, 1987) and aging (Sergeyenko et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: a review of the literature

Prell

2018

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Short-term noise exposure that induces transient changes in thresholds has induced permanent cochlear synaptopathy in multiple species. Here, the literature was reviewed to gain translational insight into the relationships between noise exposure, ABR metrics, speech-in-noise performance and TTS in humans. Design: PubMed-based literature search, retrieval and review of full-text articles. Study Sample: Peerreviewed literature identified using PubMed search. Results: Permanent occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is frequently accompanied by abnormal ABR amplitude and latency. In the absence of NIHL, there are mixed results for relationships between noise exposure and ABR metrics. Interpretation of speech-in-noise deficits is difficult as both cochlear synaptopathy and outer hair cell (OHC) loss can drive deficits. Reductions in Wave I amplitude during TTS may reflect temporary OHC pathology rather than cochlear synaptopathy. Use of diverse protocols across studies reduces the ability to compare outcomes across studies. Conclusions: Longitudinal ABR and speech-in-noise data collected using consistent protocols are needed. Although speech-in-noise testing may not reflect cochlear synaptopathy, speech-in-noise testing should be completed as part of a comprehensive test battery to provide the objective measurement of patient difficulty.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Noise On Cochlear Hair Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: a review of the literature

Prell

2018

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Up until recently there has been limited research that investigates the current ototoxicity assessment and management practices in South Africa. This is a serious gap in evidence on ototoxicity monitoring, which Campbell and Le Prell [26] emphasize should cover detection and monitoring as well as grading of adverse events in any context. This is an important area for research because of the increased risk of communicable diseases that require ototoxic medication for treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Are the Current Audiological Practices for Ototoxicity Assessment and Management in the South African Healthcare Context?

Khoza-Shangase

Masondo

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study was an initial exploration of the current ototoxicity assessment and management practices by audiologists in South Africa. An exploratory survey research methodology through a cross-sectional research design was adopted where audiologists were recruited from professional associations’ databases in South Africa, using specific inclusion criteria. The study made use of an 18-item web-based survey guided by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) (2018) guidelines which were developed from reviewing international guidelines such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA,1994) and the American Academy of Audiology (AAA, 2009). The study surveyed 31 audiologists from across the country. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Findings implied significant gaps between knowledge and translation of this knowledge into practice. Over two thirds of the participants engage with ototoxicity monitoring and management, but the practices adopted by them do not align with international standards nor with the national HPCSA guidelines on assessment and management of patients on ototoxic medications. Most participants do not conduct baseline assessments, and the frequency of monitoring is irregular and reduced from the recommended; thus influencing ability for early detection and intervention of ototoxicity within this context. Non-standard assessment battery is used for assessment and monitoring, raising questions about the reliability and validity of the data used to make preventive treatment decisions. Lack of collaborative work between audiologists and the rest of the clinical team involved in the treatment of patients on ototoxic medications was found to be an important contributing factor to the less than optimal ototoxicity management practices. Of factors potentially influencing adherence to guidelines, the institution of employment, specifically employment in a tuberculosis hospital, seemed to have a positive influence, possibly due to the focused nature of the audiologists’ scope of practice there as well as availability of resources. The level of education appeared to have no influence. Current findings provide contextually relevant evidence on ototoxicity assessment and management within this context. They raise important implications for guidelines adherence and translating knowledge, policies and guidelines into practice, clinical assessment and management protocols followed, appropriate resource allocation per programme, as well as strategic planning for national ototoxicity assessment and management programmes in context. The findings also raise important implications for low- and middle-income countries, in terms of adopting international guidelines without considering context.

show abstract

“…11 A second major cause of acquired hearing loss in children and adults is treatment with lifesaving pharmaceutical agents that are toxic to the inner ear (for a review, see Campbell and Le Prell). 12 Drug-induced hearing loss (DIHL) often occurs as a side effect of treatment with lifesaving drug agents such as cisplatin and aminoglycoside antibiotics. Many of the agents that have been assessed for the prevention of NIHL also have assessed for potential prevention of DIHL, as there is significant overlap in the mechanisms of cell death that are activated by noise exposure and by ototoxic drugs.…”

Section: The Need For Otoprotective Drug Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Otoprotectants: From Research to Clinical Application

Prell

2019

Semin Hear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an urgent need for otoprotective drug agents. Prevention of noise-induced hearing loss continues to be a major challenge for military personnel and workers in a variety of industries despite the requirements that at-risk individuals use hearing protection devices such as ear plugs or ear muffs. Drug-induced hearing loss is also a major quality-of-life issue with many patients experiencing clinically significant hearing loss as a side effect of treatment with life-saving drug agents such as cisplatin and aminoglycoside antibiotics. There are no pharmaceutical agents approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of protecting the inner ear against damage, and preventing associated hearing loss (otoprotection). However, a variety of preclinical studies have suggested promise, with some supporting data from clinical trials now being available as well. Additional research within this promising area is urgently needed.

show abstract

Drug-Induced Ototoxicity: Diagnosis and Monitoring

Cited by 52 publications

References 154 publications

Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: a review of the literature

Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: a review of the literature

What Are the Current Audiological Practices for Ototoxicity Assessment and Management in the South African Healthcare Context?

Otoprotectants: From Research to Clinical Application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About