Abstract

ObjectiveIdiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is typically treated with systematic or intratympanic corticosteroids. Current ENT-UK guidelines suggest treatment with a dose of oral prednisolone 1mg/kg/day for 7 days then tapered over a further 5 days. However, there is no consensus on the effectiveness of corticosteroids for idiopathic SSNHL and no universally accepted optimal regime. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effect of high dose versus standard dose corticosteroids in the management of idiopathic SSNHL. MethodsA systematic review was performed of all published data related to patients with idiopathic SSNHL who were treated acutely with high dose corticosteroid therapy. Articles were included that reported data on high dose, or comparing standard dose to high dose, oral or intravenous corticosteroid therapy for the treatment of patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Articles where patients received only combination treatment with intra-tympanic steroid were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the ROB-2 tool. ResultsSix studies were included in the analysis, representing 919 patients. Two prospective single-arm studies of patients with SSNHL treated with a high dose steroid regime found mean hearing level improved (79.5dB to 42.3dB) and 45.8% of idiopathic patients had complete recovery of hearing. Three retrospective case-series comparing high dose to standard dose regimes found a significantly greater improvement in hearing level (38.3dB vs. 48.8dB, P = 0.042), a greater mean absolute hearing gain (44.4dB vs. 15.1dB) and a significantly higher rate of functionally relevant recovery (35.7% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.035) in patients treated with high dose regimes. The single included prospective randomised trial found no statistically significant difference in mean hearing level or speech discrimination score between patients treated with high dose pulse steroids or a standard dose regime. ConclusionsOur systematic review found the reported outcomes in the literature in this area to be mixed, with some studies suggesting a greater degree of hearing recovery with a high dose regime but others suggesting no difference. The overall quality of the available evidence was deemed to be low, with the studies at moderate risk of bias.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call