Objectives: To investigate whether migraine is independently associated with tinnitus and subjective hearing loss (HL) in a large national database. Methods: The de-identified 1999 to 2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database was retrospectively queried for subjects aged 18 to 65. HL and tinnitus were subjectively reported by subjects. Results: A total of 12,962 subjects (52.9% female) with a mean age of 38.1 AE 14.6 years were included. This consisted of 2,657 (20.5%), 2,344 (18.1%), and 2,582 (19.9%) subjects who had migraine, subjective-HL, and tinnitus, respectively. In patients with tinnitus or subjective-HL, migraine was reported in 35.6% and 24.5%, respectively. Migraineurs were more likely to have subjective-HL (25.0% vs. 16.6%, p < 0.001) and tinnitus (34.6% vs. 16.9%, p < 0.001) compared to the nonmigraineurs. This corresponded to migraine having an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.7, p < 0.001) and 2.2 (95% CI 2.0-2.4, p < 0.001) for subjective-HL and tinnitus, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, subjective-HL (odds ratio [OR] ¼ 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4, p ¼ 0.003), tinnitus (OR ¼ 2.1, 95% CI 1.9-2.3, p < 0.001), and neck pain (OR ¼ 4.0, 95% CI 3.6-4.5, p < 0.001) were more common in migraineurs. Among migraineurs, a higher proportion of those with tinnitus also had subjective-HL compared to those without tinnitus (40.0% vs. 15.3%, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of those with subjective-HL also had tinnitus compared to those without HL (58.1% vs. 27.3%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study suggests an independent association between migraine with subjective-HL and tinnitus. Otologic migraine, which is the effects of migraine on the ear, may be partly responsible for the link between HL, tinnitus, neck pain, and migraine.

BackgroundAcute invasive fungal sinusitis (AIFS) is an aggressive disease that requires prompt diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment given its rapid progression. However, there is currently no consensus on diagnosis, prognosis, and management strategies for AIFS, with multiple modalities routinely employed. The purpose of this multi‐institutional and multidisciplinary evidence‐based review with recommendations (EBRR) is to thoroughly review the literature on AIFS, summarize the existing evidence, and provide recommendations on the management of AIFS.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception through January 2022. Studies evaluating management for orbital, non‐sinonasal head and neck, and intracranial manifestations of AIFS were included. An iterative review process was utilized in accordance with EBRR guidelines. Levels of evidence and recommendations on management principles for AIFS were generated.ResultsA review and evaluation of published literature was performed on 12 topics surrounding AIFS (signs and symptoms, laboratory and microbiology diagnostics, endoscopy, imaging, pathology, surgery, medical therapy, management of extrasinus extension, reversing immunosuppression, and outcomes and survival). The aggregate quality of evidence was varied across reviewed domains.ConclusionBased on the currently available evidence, judicious utilization of a combination of history and physical examination, laboratory and histopathologic techniques, and endoscopy provide the cornerstone for accurate diagnosis of AIFS. In addition, AIFS is optimally managed by a multidisciplinary team via a combination of surgery (including resection whenever possible), antifungal therapy, and correcting sources of immunosuppression. Higher quality (i.e., prospective) studies are needed to better define the roles of each modality and determine diagnosis and treatment algorithms.

Objective: To compare the presence of migraine features between patients with isolated aural fullness (AF) who meet the diagnostic criteria for migraine headache and those who do not, and to propose diagnostic criteria for migrainerelated AF based on our results. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients presenting to a tertiary-care neurotology clinic between 2014 and 2020 with migraine-related AF. This was defined as isolated, prolonged aural fullness concurrent with migraine features once other etiologies were ruled out via examination, audiometry, and imaging. Migraine features were compared between patients meeting the diagnostic criteria for migraine headache and those not meeting the criteria. Results: Seventy-seven patients with migraine-related AF were included. The mean age was 56 AE 15 years and 55 (71%) patients were female. Eleven (14%) patients fulfilled the criteria for migraine headache (migraine group). Of the 66 patients who did not meet the criteria (nonmigraine group), 17 (26%) met 4/5 criteria, and 32 (48%) met 3/5 criteria, for a total of 49 (74%) patients. The migraine and nonmigraine groups were only different in 5 of 20 features, including family history of migraine ( p ¼ 0.007), sound sensitivity ( p < 0.001), mental fogginess ( p ¼ 0.008), visual motion sensitivity ( p ¼ 0.008), and light sensitivity ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: There are minimal differences in the overall prevalence of migraine features between patients with migraine-related AF who meet and do not meet the diagnostic criteria for migraine. Our findings suggest that the criteria may be too stringent and exclude many patients from potentially benefitting from treatment with migraine prophylaxis.

No abstract

BackgroundGuidelines recommending vancomycin trough concentrations > 10 mg/L in non-deep seated infections are based on expert opinion. The objective of this study was to evaluate patients with non-deep seated infections treated with short-course vancomycin to determine whether there were differences in outcomes with trough concentrations of ≤10 mg/L (low) versus > 10 mg/L (high).MethodsA retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized between March 10, 2010 and December 31, 2015 who received ≤14 days of vancomycin to treat a non-deep seated infection and had at least one steady state trough concentration was completed. Patient data for the low versus high trough cohorts were compared using appropriate statistical tests and binary logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with clinical outcome.ResultsOf 2098 patients screened, 103 (5%) met inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics between cohorts were not different. Clinical cure was not different between the low (42/48 [88%]) and high trough (48/55 [87%]) cohorts (p > 0.99) and vancomycin trough concentration was not associated with clinical outcome (p = 0.973). More patients in the high trough group had dosing changes (7/48 [15%] vs. 22/55 [40%], p = 0.0046), with approximately three times more dose adjustments per patient (0.17 vs. 0.55, p = 0.0193). No signal for increased vancomycin resistance associated with vancomycin troughs was identified.Conclusions:No difference in clinical or microbiological outcomes based on vancomycin trough concentrations were observed in patients with non-deep seated infections treated with vancomycin for ≤14 days. Targeting higher vancomycin trough concentrations of > 10 mg/L may be associated with increased workload with no corresponding benefit in clinical or microbiological outcomes in these patients.