Tinnitus is a common medical symptom that can be debilitating. Risk factors include hearing loss, ototoxic medication, head injury, and depression. At presentation, the possibilities of otological disease, anxiety, and depression should be considered. No eff ective drug treatments are available, although much research is underway into mechanisms and possible treatments. Surgical intervention for any otological pathology associated with tinnitus might be eff ective for that condition, but the tinnitus can persist. Available treatments include hearing aids when hearing loss is identifi ed (even mild or unilateral), wide-band sound therapy, and counselling. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is indicated for some patients, but availability of tinnitus-specifi c CBT in the UK is poor. The evidence base is strongest for a combination of sound therapy and CBT-based counselling, although clinical trials are constrained by the heterogeneity of patients with tinnitus.

Tinnitus is unusual for such a common symptom in that there are few treatment options and those that are available are aimed at reducing the impact rather than specifically addressing the tinnitus percept. In particular, there is no drug recommended specifically for the management of tinnitus. Whilst some of the currently available interventions are effective at improving quality of life and reducing tinnitus-associated psychological distress, most show little if any effect on the primary symptom of subjective tinnitus loudness. Studies of the delivery of tinnitus services have demonstrated considerable end-user dissatisfaction and a marked disconnect between the aims of healthcare providers and those of tinnitus patients: patients want their tinnitus loudness reduced and would prefer a pharmacological solution over other modalities. Several studies have shown that tinnitus confers a significant financial burden on healthcare systems and an even greater economic impact on society as a whole. Market research has demonstrated a strong commercial opportunity for an effective pharmacological treatment for tinnitus, but the amount of tinnitus research and financial investment is small compared to other chronic health conditions. There is no single reason for this situation, but rather a series of impediments: tinnitus prevalence is unclear with published figures varying from 5.1 to 42.7%; there is a lack of a clear tinnitus definition and there are multiple subtypes of tinnitus, potentially requiring different treatments; there is a dearth of biomarkers and objective measures for tinnitus; treatment research is associated with a very large placebo effect; the pathophysiology of tinnitus is unclear; animal models are available but research in animals frequently fails to correlate with human studies; there is no clear definition of what constitutes meaningful change or “cure”; the pharmaceutical industry cannot see a clear pathway to distribute their products as many tinnitus clinicians are non-prescribing audiologists. To try and clarify this situation, highlight important areas for research and prevent wasteful duplication of effort, the British Tinnitus Association (BTA) has developed a Map of Tinnitus. This is a repository of evidence-based tinnitus knowledge, designed to be free to access, intuitive, easy to use, adaptable and expandable.

There is insufficient evidence to say that antidepressant drug therapy improves tinnitus.

The First International Conference on Hyperacusis gathered over 100 scientists and health care professionals in London, UK. Key conclusions from the conference included: (1) Hyperacusis is characterized by reduced tolerance of sound that has perceptual, psychological and social dimensions; (2) there is a growing awareness that children as well as adults experience symptoms of hyperacusis or misophonia; (3) the exact mechanisms that give rise to hyperacusis are not clear, but the available evidence suggests that functional changes within the central nervous system are important and in particular, hyperacusis may be related to increased gain in the central auditory pathways and to increased anxiety or emotional response to sound; (4) various counseling and sound therapy approaches seem beneficial in the management of hyperacusis, but the evidence base for these remains poor.

BackgroundThere is no standard treatment pathway for tinnitus patients in the UK. Possible therapies include education and reassurance, cognitive behavioural therapies, modified tinnitus retraining therapy (education and sound enrichment), or amplification of external sound using hearing aids. However, the effectiveness of most therapies is somewhat controversial. As health services come under economic pressure to deploy resources more effectively there is an increasing need to demonstrate the value of tinnitus therapies, and how value may be continuously enhanced. The objective of this project was to map out existing clinical practice, estimate the NHS costs associated with the management approaches used, and obtain initial indicative estimates of cost-effectiveness.MethodsCurrent treatment pathways, costs and health outcomes were determined from the tinnitus literature, national statistics, a patient survey, and expert opinion. These were used to create an Excel-based economic model of therapy options for tinnitus patients. The probabilities associated with the likelihood of an individual patient receiving a particular combination of therapies was used to calculate the average cost of treatment per patient, average health outcome per patient measured in QALYs gained, and cost-effectiveness, measured by the average cost per QALY gained.ResultsThe average cost of tinnitus treatment per patient per year is GB£717, equating to an NHS healthcare bill of GB£750 million per year. Across all pathways, tinnitus therapy costs £10,600 per QALY gained. Results were relatively insensitive to restrictions on access to cognitive behaviour therapy, and a subsequent reliance on other therapies.ConclusionsNHS provisions for tinnitus are cost-effective against the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effective threshold. Most interventions help, but education alone offers very small QALY gains. The most cost-effective therapies in the model were delivered within audiology.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2527-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A single, low-quality randomised controlled trial suggests that TRT is much more effective as a treatment for patients with tinnitus than tinnitus masking.

No abstract

BackgroundTinnitus service provision in the United Kingdom has been investigated from the healthcare provider’s perspective demonstrating considerable regional variation particularly regarding availability of psychological treatments. An audiological-based tinnitus service, however, was reportedly available for all tinnitus patients in the UK. The aim of the current study was to define and evaluate nationwide tinnitus healthcare services from the patients’ viewpoint.MethodsSecondary analyses were performed on data from a 33-item questionnaire provided by the British Tinnitus Association. The questionnaire had been distributed via email and social media.ResultsResponses from 937 participants who had or had previously experienced tinnitus were analysed. All but one person had at some time consulted their GP. About one in five received medication in primary care. The majority were referred to secondary care, generally an ENT surgeon or audiovestibular physician; some were referred directly to audiological services. In secondary care the majority underwent audiometric testing and over half underwent MRI scanning. Drugs were prescribed less frequently in secondary care. About one third of patients were referred onwards from diagnostic services in secondary care to receive therapeutic interventions for tinnitus. Therapy was generally delivered by an audiologist or hearing therapist. Just under two fifths of people discharged from secondary care returned to their GP, with most returning within one year. Over a third of this group were re-referred to secondary care. Few patients saw a psychologist (2.6%) though some psychological treatments were delivered by appropriately trained audiologists. Negative counselling from healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care settings was reported.ConclusionsAlthough the UK has developed a national service for patients with tinnitus many people find it difficult to access, being blocked at the primary care level or after secondary care diagnostic services. Many of those discharged from secondary care return to their GP within a short space of time and are re-referred to secondary care creating an unsatisfactory and expensive revolving-door pattern of healthcare. Despite psychological treatment modalities having the best evidence base for successful tinnitus management, only a minority of tinnitus patients ever get to meet a psychologist.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2914-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.