Transmyringeal ventilation tube insertion for unilateral Menière's disease: a protocol for a prospective, sham-controlled, double-blinded, randomized, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Menière's disease is an idiopathic disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo lasting more than 20 min, unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, and tinnitus. If vertigo attacks occur frequently, the patient is usually severely incapacitated. Currently, there is no consensus on the treatment of Menière's disease. The evidence regarding most treatment options is sparse due to a lack of randomized trials together with an often-spontaneous relief over time and a considerable placebo effect. Insertion of a transmyringeal tube is a simple and relatively safe, minimally invasive procedure and previous open-label trials have shown promising results. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective, sham-controlled, double-blinded, randomized, clinical trial. AIM: This trial aims to assess the effects of inserting a ventilation tube into the tympanic membrane compared with sham treatment for definite or probable unilateral Menière's disease according to the criteria formulated by the Classification Committee of the Bàràny Society. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome will be the number of spontaneous vertigo attacks lasting more than 20 min and time to treatment failure. In addition to the primary outcome, we will assess various secondary outcomes related to hearing, ear fullness, dizziness, and serious adverse events. SAMPLE SIZE: An estimated 104 participants in total or 52 participants in each group will be necessary. The primary analysis will be according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial will be initiated in 2021 and is expected to end in 2025. TRIAL STATUS: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04835688 . Registered on April 8, 2021. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.8, 26-09-2022. Date of first enrollment: October 1st, 2021. End of study: anticipated January 2025.

Vertiginous Episodes in Menière Disease following Transmyringeal Ventilation Tube Insertion: A Systematic Review on the Current State of Evidence

Abstract Introduction Menière disease (MD) is a disorder characterized by episodes of vertigo, sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and aural fullness. Objectives To assess the effect of ventilation tube insertion (VTI) on vertiginous episodes in patients (≥ 18 years old) with MD. Data Synthesis A systematic literature search on randomized clinical trials (RCTs), nonrandomized trials and other systematic reviews was performed. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Two RCTs and four nonrandomized studies were identified. Data extraction was only possible for one RCT. Results showed that the number of patients with no vertigo attacks significantly increased following active treatment (relative risk 1.52; [95% confidence interval: 1.19-1.94]). The quality of evidence was rated as low. None of the nonrandomized trials included a proper control group, which hindered data extraction and quality assessment. Conclusion There are currently no RCTs that specifically assess the efficacy of VTI in patients with MD. Current limited data suggest a considerable positive effect on the number of vertiginous episodes in patients with MD. However, due to poor evidence, a fluctuating course and a substantial placebo-effect associated with MD-treatment, no solid conclusion(s) regarding the efficacy of VTI can be made. There is a need for high-quality RCTs.

Vertiginous Episodes in Menière Disease following Transmyringeal Ventilation Tube Insertion: A Systematic Review on the Current State of Evidence.

Introduction Menière disease (MD) is a disorder characterized by episodes of vertigo, sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and aural fullness. Objectives To assess the effect of ventilation tube insertion (VTI) on vertiginous episodes in patients (≥ 18 years old) with MD. Data Synthesis A systematic literature search on randomized clinical trials (RCTs), nonrandomized trials and other systematic reviews was performed. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Two RCTs and four nonrandomized studies were identified. Data extraction was only possible for one RCT. Results showed that the number of patients with no vertigo attacks significantly increased following active treatment (relative risk 1.52; [95% confidence interval: 1.19-1.94]). The quality of evidence was rated as low. None of the nonrandomized trials included a proper control group, which hindered data extraction and quality assessment. Conclusion There are currently no RCTs that specifically assess the efficacy of VTI in patients with MD. Current limited data suggest a considerable positive effect on the number of vertiginous episodes in patients with MD. However, due to poor evidence, a fluctuating course and a substantial placebo-effect associated with MD-treatment, no solid conclusion(s) regarding the efficacy of VTI can be made. There is a need for high-quality RCTs.

Using betahistine in the treatment of patients with Menière's disease: a meta-analysis with the current randomized-controlled evidence.

Background: Betahistine is used worldwide to treat patients with Menière's disease. However, despite it being used for decades, diverging opinions on the effect of betahistine on Menière's symptomatology still exist.Aims: The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and rate the certainty of the current evidence base regarding the use of betahistine to treat patients with Menière's disease.Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in October 2019. The search strategy was subdivided into searches for existing guidelines, systematic reviews and individual randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the usage of betahistine as compared to placebo, in patients with Ménière's disease. The primary outcome was the frequency of vertigo attack(s) and occurrence of serious adverse events.Results: We identified three relevant guidelines and three systematic reviews: however, neither included any relevant trials matching our inclusion criteria. An individual search for RCTs identified one trial. The results from this particular trial showed no difference in effects on symptoms following treatment with betahistine.Conclusions and Significance: There is a need for further well-conducted placebo RCTs. Currently, there is still a lack of substantial evidence supporting betahistine as a significant and adequate treatment for patients diagnosed with Menière's disease. Trial registration number: The protocol is registered in PROSPERO. Registration number: CRD42018110127 Accepted 11.10.2018.

Current state of evidence for endolymphatic sac surgery in Menière's disease: a systematic review.

Background: Endolymphatic sac surgery is an invasive procedure recommended to patients with Menière's disease. Aims/Objectives: To provide an overview and quality assessment of the existing evidence and to provide an updated assessment of the utility of endolymphatic sac surgery in Menière's disease. Material and Methods: We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The AMSTAR tool was used to assess the quality of systematic reviews and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. The overall certainty of effects for the individual outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results: One systematic review of high quality matched the inclusion criteria, and included three RCTs. An updated literature search from the last search date of the included review provided no further relevant RCTs. The identified RCTs individually reported a positive effect of both the placebo and active treatment groups following surgery, strongly indicative of a placebo effect. The overall certainty of the effect was very low. Conclusions and significance: There is still a lack of high-quality research suggesting that endolymphatic sac surgery provides a significant amount of symptomatic relief for Menière's patients.

Intratympanic Steroid for Menière's Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the beneficial effects and safety of intratympanic steroid installation compared with placebo in patients with Menière's disease. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE for existing systematic reviews and individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were included if they investigated the usage intratympanic steroids in patients aged 18 and above, with definite or probable Menière's disease. The quality of the identified existing reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool. The risk of bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and overall quality of the individual outcomes was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. RESULTS: The literature search provided four systematic reviews, from which one yielded a sufficient AMSTAR evaluation and subsequently provided three RCTs relevant for inclusion. Due to the lack of sufficient reporting of the data, quantitative synthesis was not applicable. In the qualitative synthesis for the primary outcome, the results from the RCTs showed that there was a slight indication of steroid treatment reducing the frequency of vertiginous attacks. No serious adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach the quality for both findings is very low. No studies reported on the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The effect of intratympanic steroid treatment in Menière's disease is questionable. There is a great need for further research to sufficiently assess whether steroid treatment may be considered as a safe and effective treatment for patients with Menière's disease.

Positive pressure device treatment for Menière's disease: an overview of the current evidence and a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to critically assess the current evidence investigating the efficacy of using a positive pressure device in patients with definite or probable Menière's disease. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to February 2018. We included both systematic reviews and primary literature [randomized controlled trials (RCTs)] investigating positive pressure treatment, in patients (≥ 18 years of age), with Menière's disease. We assessed the internal validity of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR tool and risk of bias of primary studies using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. We performed a meta-analysis for each outcome based on the identified studies. The overall certainty of evidence for the outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: The search for systematic reviews identified four relevant reviews. These all included the same four RCTs. An updated search identified one additional RCT. In total, five RCTs were included in the data synthesis. Our data synthesis showed no effect of positive pressure treatment on primary nor secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported. The overall certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low, due to the serious risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSION: The current available evidence does not support positive pressure device treatment in patients with Menière's disease. However, the limitations of the current literature hinder the possibility of any solid conclusion. There remains a need for randomized controlled trials of high quality to fully access the utility of this treatment.