A Retrospective Study of Clinical Profile of Patients with Autoimmune Inner Ear Disease.

Bilateral sensorineural hearing loss can be a very distressing symptom and can affect the efficiency of a person and one's quality of life. Conditions causing bilateral hearing loss are very few and autoimmune aetiology is one of them. Autoimmune ear disease is characterised by bilateral, mostly fluctuating audiovestibular symptoms and symptoms which respond to steroids. Diagnosis of AIED presents a unique challenge to clinicians due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria or reliable pathognomonic tests. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the patients who fit into criteria of autoimmune inner ear disease and understand the clinical features and response to medications for the same. A retrospective chart review of patients presenting with rapidly progressive bilateral hearing loss was done. The clinical presentation including detailed history and examination findings along with the blood investigation reports and audiograms were recorded in a tabular form. The study included 6 patients - 3 male and 3 female patients. Age of the patients at onset of hearing loss varied between 24-35 years. 3 of 6 patients presented with primary autoimmune ear disease and other 3 had hearing loss secondary to systemic autoimmune disease. All patients were treated with systemic steroids, but however showed a varied response. Patients with primary AIED were administered inner ear steroid therapy as well. AIED is thus a diagnosis of exclusion done with high index of suspicion. Patients with bilateral progressive sensorineural hearing loss should be evaluated for autoimmune etiology. Oral steroids with intratympanic steroids are currently the mainstay of treatment for AIED. Guarded prognosis of hearing improvement is noted in these patients. Hence, emphasis should be placed on early hearing rehabilitation for better quality of life.

Oral Propranolol Therapy for Infantile Hemangioma: Long-term Follow-up.

ß-blocker therapy is currently the treatment of choice for infantile hemangiomas (IH), albeit with limited data on long-term treatment outcomes. Herein, authors treated 67 IH lesions in 47 patients with oral propranolol at 2 mg/kg/d for a median of 9 mo and followed them up for a median of 48 mo. While no maintenance therapy was required for 18 lesions (26.9%), the rest needed maintenance therapy. Both treatment regimens had comparable efficacy (83.3±23.9% and 92.0±13.8%) but chances of IH recurrence was higher in lesions requiring maintenance therapy. Also, patients treated at ≤5 mo of age had a significantly better response and a lower recurrence rate than patients treated at >5 mo of age (95.0±7.9% vs. 87.0±17.5%, p = 0.05). Authors' experience suggests that longer durations of maintenance therapy offered no added advantage to the overall improvement of IH while treatment initiation at an earlier age showed better improvement and lower recurrence rates.

Olanzapine for Prevention of Vomiting in Children and Adolescents Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Investigator-Initiated, Randomized, Open-Label Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of chemotherapy. Olanzapine is recommended in adult patients for the prevention of CINV but has not been prospectively investigated in children. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial evaluated olanzapine in children (ages 5-18 years) scheduled to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All participants received aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone during and 2 days after chemotherapy. Participants in the study group additionally received oral olanzapine 0.14 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 2.5 mg; maximum, 10 mg) during the chemotherapy block and 3 days postchemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates (no vomiting and no rescue medication) between the groups in the acute, delayed, and overall periods. Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary and additional objectives, respectively. The collection of outcomes and adverse events was performed daily until the completion of the overall period. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients underwent randomization. We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group). A higher proportion of patients in the olanzapine group achieved CR in the acute period (78% v 59%; P = .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001) and overall period (64% v 38%; P < .001) than in the control group. The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the acute period (74% v 52%; P < .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001), and overall period (64% v 37%; P < .001). Grade 1/2 somnolence was greater in the olanzapine group (35% v 11%; P < .001). There was no grade 3/4 somnolence reported. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine significantly improved CR rates for vomiting in children receiving the first cycle of HEC.