Objective: To answer the following question: In patients with primary autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED), (population) what impact do disease-modifying antirheumatic agents (DMARDs) (intervention) when compared with no treatment or corticosteroids (comparison) have on auditory and vestibular outcomes (outcome)? Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: According to PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 10, 2022. Study Selection: Studies of patients receiving DMARDs for the treatment of AIED were selected for review. Case reports, phase I/II trials, studies of patients with secondary AIED, and studies of AIED patients receiving solely corticosteroids were excluded. Data Extraction: Primary outcomes were pure-tone audiometry and speech discrimination scores at baseline and after DMARD treatment. Secondary outcomes were rates of subjective audiovestibular complaints and rates of adverse reactions. No objective vestibular outcomes underwent meta-analysis. Data Synthesis: Mean differences were calculated using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q test and I 2 statistic.Pooled prevalence rates of audiovestibular symptoms were expressed as a percentage with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Ten studies with a total of 187 patients were included. Treatments included methotrexate, etanercept, azathioprine, anakinra, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, and infliximab. Mean treatment duration was 10.8 ± 22.2 months and mean follow-up was 13.7 ± 8.1 months. The pure-tone audiometry and speech discrimination scores mean differences between baseline and post-DMARD were −2.1 [−4.1, −0.1] dB and 13.9 [8.5, 19.4] %, respectively. Seven studies reported 38 adverse events, four of which were classified as serious. Conclusion: DMARDs showed statistically significant improvement in auditory outcomes, as well as subjective symptoms, with relatively low rates of adverse events. They warrant further exploration to better compare with corticosteroids.
Introduction COVID-19 has led to delays in providing healthcare in both emergency and non-emergency settings, especially in surgical subspecialties which rely heavily on referrals and in-person visits. Without an established telehealth infrastructure, many otorhinolaryngological departments experienced decreases in consultations. Telemedicine has attempted to bridge the gap between pre- and post-pandemic periods by creating a safe avenue of communication between otorhinolaryngologists and patients. This review hopes to address the accuracy of telemedicine in patient diagnosis and management. Methods Searches were conducted since study conception until June 30, 2022, on multiple databases including PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostic accuracy, management accuracy, kappa, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were meta-analyzed by comparing virtual visits to in-person visits (gold standard). Results Nineteen studies were included in this review. A total of 1518 patients were included across all studies. When comparing virtual visits against in-person visits, accurate diagnosis was made in 86.2% [82.1,89.9, I2 = 73.5%, P < 0.0001] of patients and management accuracy was 91.5% [86.1,95.7, I2 = 81.8%, P < 0.0001] when treating patients. Kappa value determining interrater reliability was 0.8 [0.7,0.9, I2 = 81.8%, P < 0.0001]. Conclusion Our data suggest that diagnostic and management concordance is above 80% when comparing diagnosis and management strategies in patients who underwent both telehealth and in-person visits with an otorhinolaryngologist. In uncomplicated patients, telehealth might be a reliable source for diagnosis and management however, in-person consultation is likely still required for pathologies in which physical exam, imaging or procedural elements represent a vital component of the work-up.
Objectives: To perform a systematic review of otolaryngologic presentation rates to emergency department settings before and after lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sources: PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL. Methods: A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) for studies describing otolaryngologic presentations to emergency department and rapid access clinic settings both in the before-lockdown and after-lockdown periods. The start of after-lockdown period varied based on initiation of lockdown, ranging from March 1st to June 1st of 2020 across general emergency department studies. Results: A total of 14 studies were included in this review. About 10 were general emergency departments, 3 were specifically pediatric emergency departments, and 1 study focused on the geriatric population (>65 years). A total of 13 790 patients were included, with 9446 in the before-lockdown period (68.5%) and 4344 in the after-lockdown period (31.5%). Meta-analysis of proportions for otolaryngologic presentations across general emergency departments was performed. Comparison of weighted proportions found significant differences between before-lockdown and after-lockdown presentation rates for infectious etiologies, tonsillitis specifically, foreign bodies, non-infectious airway issues, and epistaxis among these studies. Conclusions: The increased proportions of various non-infectious presentations (eg, epistaxis, foreign bodies, and airway issues) following lockdown might be associated with proportional decreases in infectious pathologies, given decreased social contact to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Overall, it is important for otolaryngologists to recognize what presentations might more commonly be seen and require evaluation and potential intervention in light of a global pandemic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.