Highly variable hearing loss due to POU4F3 (c.37del) is revealed by longitudinal, frequency specific analyses.

Genotype-phenotype correlations add value to the management of families with hereditary hearing loss (HL), where age-related typical audiograms (ARTAs) are generated from cross-sectional regression equations and used to predict the audiogram phenotype across the lifespan. A seven-generation kindred with autosomal dominant sensorineural HL (ADSNHL) was recruited and a novel pathogenic variant in POU4F3 (c.37del) was identified by combining linkage analysis with whole exome sequencing (WES). POU4F3 is noted for large intrafamilial variation including the age of onset of HL, audiogram configuration and presence of vestibular impairment. Sequential audiograms and longitudinal analyses reveal highly variable audiogram features among POU4F3 (c.37del) carriers, limiting the utility of ARTAs for clinical prognosis and management of HL. Furthermore, a comparison of ARTAs against three previously published families (1 Israeli Jewish, 2 Dutch) reveals significant interfamilial differences, with earlier onset and slower deterioration. This is the first published report of a North American family with ADSNHL due to POU4F3, the first report of the pathogenic c.37del variant, and the first study to conduct longitudinal analysis, extending the phenotypic spectrum of DFNA15.

Inhaled ciclesonide versus inhaled budesonide or inhaled beclomethasone or inhaled fluticasone for chronic asthma in adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ciclesonide is a new inhaled corticosteroids licensed for the prophylactic treatment of persistent asthma in adults. Currently beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide and fluticasone propionate are the most commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma but there has been no systematic review comparing the effectiveness and safety ciclesonide to these agents. We therefore aimed to systematically review published randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness and safety of ciclesonide compared to alternative inhaled corticosteroids in people with asthma. METHODS: We performed literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, the COCHRANE LIBRARY and various Internet evidence sources for randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews comparing ciclesonide to beclomethasone or budesonide or fluticasone in adult humans with persistent asthma. Data was extracted by one reviewer. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable. There were no trials comparing ciclesonide to beclomethasone. There was no significant difference between ciclesonide and budesonide or fluticasone on the following outcomes: lung function, symptoms, quality of life, airway responsiveness to a provoking agent or inflammatory markers. However, the trials were very small in size, increasing the possibility of a type II error. One trial demonstrated that the combined deposition of ciclesonide (and its active metabolite) in the oropharynx was 47% of that of budesonide while another trial demonstrated that the combined deposition of ciclesonide (and its active metabolite) in the oropharynx was 53% of that of fluticasone. One trial demonstrated less suppression of cortisol in overnight urine collection after ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (geometric mean fold difference = 1.5, P < 0.05) but no significant difference in plasma cortisol response. CONCLUSION: There is very little evidence comparing CIC to other ICS, restricted to very small, phase II studies of low power. These demonstrate CIC has similar effectiveness and efficacy to FP and BUD (though equivalence is not certain) and findings regarding oral deposition and HPA suppression are inconclusive. There is no direct comparative evidence that CIC causes fewer side effects since none of the studies reported patient-based outcomes.