METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 20 patients who had suffered from ISSHL from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. ISSHL is defined as a rapid decline in hearing over three days or less affecting three or more frequencies by 30dB or greater. Comparison between the mode of steroid therapies and improvement in patients was done. At least 15dB improvement in pure tone audiogram (PTA) was considered as successful therapeutic intervention.
RESULTS: Twenty male and female patients who fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. The mean age of the patients was 41.4 years with a range from 13 to 72 years. Ninety percent patients presented with unilateral ISSHL involvement. Eight ears of patients who received systemic steroid therapy alone had improved hearings (75%). Out of seven ears from six patients who received salvage therapy, four ears (57.1 %) had improvement in PTA. Seven ears showed improvement in PTA from a total of eight patients who primarily received IT injections.
CONCLUSIONS: IT steroid therapy promises a favourable outcome in the improvement of the hearing, as compared to systemic steroid administration. Its usage is recommended not only for salvage therapy but should be used as primary treatment especially in those with co- morbidities.
Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital was performed. Adult patients diagnosed with CRSwNP who had both allergology and radiological assessments were enrolled. The symptoms of allergic rhinitis, Lund-Kennedy (LK) endoscopic scoring, Lund-Mackay (LM) computed tomography scan of paranasal sinuses (CTPNS) scoring, CCAD features, skin prick test (SPT) and level of specific IgE were assessed. All the patients underwent SPT for house dust mites.
Results: A total of 38 patients were enrolled. Symptoms, endoscopic and CTPNS scores were higher in the allergy and CCAD groups compared to the nonallergy and nonCCAD groups. The symptom of "need to blow nose" was statistically significant in allergy vs nonallergy (p=0.01) and CCAD vs nonCCAD (p=0.02). There were significant differences in the endoscopic scores in both allergy and CCAD (allergy vs nonallergy, p=0.01; CCAD vs nonCCAD, p=0.03), and CT scores in both allergy and CCAD (allergy vs nonallergy, p=0.02; CCAD vs nonCCAD, p=0.02). All patients with CCAD have worse scoring than nonCCAD (LK score, p=0.03; LM score, p=0.02). Patients with allergy have more polypoidal involvement of the middle turbinates (left middle turbinate, p=0.141; right middle turbinate, p=0.074) and CCAD (left middle turbinate, p=0.017; right middle turbinate, p=0.009) than nonallergy and nonCCAD patients.
Conclusion: Allergic phenotype of CRSwNP has a worse clinical and radiological disease burden. Optimal treatment of allergy is essential for a better outcome.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 205 normal hearing adult participants with an age range between 25 and 54 years old. Hearing analysis with extended high-frequency pure-tone audiometry (PTA) and high-frequency DPOAE was carried out for all eligible participants. High-frequency presbycusis was considered to be present when the impairment of more than 25 dB occurs at higher than 8 kHz frequencies on both ears.
RESULTS: Prevalence of high-frequency presbycusis using extended PTA was 31.7 (95% CI: 25.3, 38.1) and using high-frequency DPOAE was 57.4 (95% CI: 50.7, 64.4). The sensitivity and specificity of high-frequency DPOAE in detecting high-frequency presbycusis were 72.3 and 49.3% respectively with positive predictive value of 39.8% and negative predictive value of 79.3%. The association between age and high-frequency presbycusis was significant based on high-frequency DPOAE (p = 0.029).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of high-frequency hearing loss is higher with increasing in age. High-frequency DPOAE may be used as a screening tool followed by confirmation using extended PTA. The early detection of presbycusis is important so that measures can be taken to prevent more severe problems developing.
Methods: An electronic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (from their inception to December 2020). A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019126271).
Results: We retrieved a total of 285 articles, of which 11 satisfied our inclusion criteria. There were 452 participants with age ranged from 15 to 58 years old. Intralymphatic immunotherapy was given in three doses with intervals of four weeks between doses in 10 trials. One trial gave three and six doses with an interval of two weeks. Both primary and secondary outcomes showed no difference between ILIT and placebo for all trials. There was no difference in the combined symptoms and medication score (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.28), symptoms score (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.38), medication score (SMD -6.56, 95% CI -21.48 to 8.37), rescue medication (RR 12.32, 95% CI 0.72-211.79) and the overall improvement score (MD -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14) between ILIT and placebo. No major adverse events noted.
Conclusions: Intralymphatic immunotherapy possibly has a role in the treatment of AR patients. This review found it is safe but not effective, which could be contributed by the high variation amongst the trials. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardized administration of ILIT and outcome measures.