Effects of Personality Traits on the Severity of Chronic Subjective Tinnitus: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Background and Objectives: We hypothesized that an individual's personality traits would have an impact on the distress of subjective tinnitus. To investigate this, 32 participants were recruited; we followed up with this cohort. This study is a cross-sectional analysis of a part of this cohort, identifying how their personality traits make a difference in the severity of tinnitus distress. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two participants completed a personality test based on the Big Five theory, consisting of 160 items. Additionally, the severity of tinnitus was assessed using the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), and the accompanying level of depression was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Audiometry tests, including pure-tone audiometry, were also conducted. Participants were categorized into the 'mild group' if their total THI score was 36 or below, and into the 'severe group' if their score was 38 or above. Results: In the traditional five domains of the Big Five Inventory (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism), only the 'Neuroticism' domain showed a difference between the two groups (25.1 ± 21.0 in the mild group and 43.1 ± 18.2 in the severe group, p = 0.014). Among ego-related factors, the 'Helplessness' domain (26.3 ± 22.9 in the mild group and 62.3 ± 27.9 in the severe group, p < 0.001) and the communication-related factor of 'Listening' (58.7 ± 18.8 in the mild group and 37.8 ± 27.9 in the severe group, p = 0.020) showed differences between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, 'Helplessness' (estimate 0.419, 95% confidence interval 0.249-0.589, p < 0.001), 'Emotional Trauma' (0.213, 0.020-0.406, p = 0.032), and 'Pure-tone threshold at 2000 Hz' (0.944, 0.477-1.411, p < 0.001) were identified as factors influencing the severity of tinnitus distress. Conclusions: Ego-related factors, particularly Helplessness and Emotional Trauma, can influence tinnitus distress and should be considered in the management of tinnitus.

Increased risk of hearing loss associated with macrolide use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The increased risk of hearing loss with macrolides remains controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze data on the clinical risk of hearing loss, tinnitus, and ototoxicity following macrolide use. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases from database inception to May 2023. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text keywords were utilized, without any language restrictions. In addition to the electronic databases, two authors manually and independently searched for relevant studies in the US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar. Studies that involved (1) patients who had hearing loss, tinnitus, or ototoxicity after macrolide use, (2) intervention of use of macrolides such as azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, fidaxomicin, roxithromycin, spiramycin, and/or telithromycin, (3) comparisons with specified placebos or other antibiotics, (4) outcomes measured as odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference for ototoxicity symptoms using randomized control trial (RCT)s and observational studies (case-control, cross-section, and cohort studies) were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two extractors, and a crosscheck was performed to identify any errors. ORs along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines for RCTs and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for observational studies were followed. We assessed the hearing loss risk after macrolide use versus controls (placebos and other antibiotics). Based on data from 13 studies including 1,142,021 patients (n = 267,546 for macrolide and n = 875,089 for controls), the overall pooled OR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.47). In subgroup analysis by study design, the ORs were 1.37 (95% CI 1.08-1.73) for RCTs and 1.33 (95% CI 1.24-1.43) for case-control studies, indicating that RCT and case-control study designs showed a statistically significant higher risk of hearing loss. The group with underlying diseases such as multiple infectious etiologies (OR, 1.16 [95% CI 0.96-1.41]) had a statistically significant lower risk than the group without (OR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.38-1.70] P = .013). The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that macrolide antibiotics increase the risk of hearing loss and that healthcare professionals should carefully consider this factor while prescribing macrolides.