Effectiveness and safety profile of mepolizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Real life data in a tertiary care.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is characterized by a type 2 pattern of inflammation. Mepolizumab was approved for the treatment of CRSwNP in 2021, it may be useful to evaluate its safety profile in a real-world setting. AIM: This work aimed to prospectively highlight the effectiveness and safety profile of Mepolizumab in patients with CRSwNP enrolled in the Otorhinolaryngology Unit of the University Hospital of Messina. METHODS: An observational cohort study was carried out considering all patients treated with Mepolizumab. A descriptive analysis was conducted reporting all demographic characteristics, endoscopic evaluations, and symptom conditions. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were treated with Mepolizumab, one patient discontinued the treatment. A statistically significant reduction in the Sino-Nasal Outcome Tests-22 (SNOT-22) and nasal polyp score (NPS) was shown at the 6th and 12th months compared to baseline values (SNOT-22, -33 and - 43, p < 0.001 for both comparisons; NPS, 0 and - 1, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). The median (Q1-Q3) sniffin' sticks test score increased from 7 (6-8) at the 6th month to 11 (10-13) at the 12th month. Seven patients (24.1 %) reported pain at the injection site, accompanied by redness, warmth, and tenderness within the first 24 h post-injection with a median duration of three days from the onset. CONCLUSIONS: Given the optimal treatment response and the minimal adverse effects observed, clinicians should consider Mepolizumab a safe and effective treatment in CRSwNP patients. Further studies in real-life setting are necessary to better understand the long-term effects.

Functional outcomes for speech-in-noise intelligibility of NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescriptive fitting rules in hearing aid users.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this research study is to assess whether differences exist in the application of the NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescription formulas in terms of speech-in-noise intelligibility. METHODS: Data from 43 patients, were retrospectively evaluated and analyzed. Inclusion criteria were patients with bilateral conductive, sensorineural, or mixed hearing loss, already using hearing aids for at least 1 year, and aged 18 years or older. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the prescriptive method employed by the hearing aid: NAL-NL2 or DSL v.5. Pure tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free field pure tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was used to assess the personal audiological benefit provided by the hearing aid. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found comparing the free-field pure tone average (FF PTA) and the free-field Word Recognition Score (FF WRS). Comparing the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) parameter of patients with NAL-NL2 vs DSL v.5, no statistically significant difference was found, thus highlighting a condition of comparability between the two prescription methods in terms of speech-in-noise intelligibility. Comparing the results of the APHAB questionnaire, no statistically significant differences were evident for all subscales and overall benefit. When conducting a comparison between male and female patients using the NAL-NL2 method, no differences were observed in SRT values, however, the APHAB questionnaire revealed a difference in the AV subscale score for the same subjects. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in speech-in-noise intelligibility, as measured by the SRT values from the Matrix Sentence Test, when comparing the two prescriptive methods. This compelling result reinforces the notion that, functionally, both methods are comparably effective in enhancing speech intelligibility in real-world, noisy environments. However, it is crucial to underscore that the absence of differences does not diminish the importance of considering individual patient needs and preferences in the selection of a prescriptive method.

Healthcare Professionals and Noise-Generating Tools: Challenging Assumptions about Hearing Loss Risk.

Hearing loss is a significant global health concern, affecting billions of people and leading to various physical, mental, and social consequences. This paper focuses on the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) among specific healthcare professionals, especially ear surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, dentists, and dental hygienists, who frequently use noisy instruments in their professions. While studies on these professionals' noise exposure levels are limited, certain conditions and factors could pose a risk to their hearing. Measures such as engineering and administrative controls, regular audiometric testing, and the use of hearing protection devices are crucial in preventing NIHL. Early detection and intervention are also vital to mitigate further damage. This paper proposes the results of a modified screening protocol, including questionnaires, audiometry, and additional diagnostic tests to identify and address potential hearing disorders. Specific healthcare professionals should remain aware of the risks, prioritize hearing protection, and undergo regular monitoring to safeguard their long-term auditory well-being.

Audiological assessment with Matrix sentence test of percutaneous vs transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The study evaluated if there were differences between two types of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA), percutaneous vs transcutaneous implants in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Eleven patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss in the implanted ear with a bone conduction pure-tone average (BC PTA) of the hearing threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz ≤ 55 dB HL, aged > 5 years. Patients were assigned to two groups: percutaneous implant (BAHA Connect) and transcutaneous implant (BAHA Attract). Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by the implant, and the variation in the quality of life after the surgery. RESULTS: No differences were found comparing the data of Matrix SRT. APHAB and GBI questionnaires did not show a statistically significant difference comparing each subscale and the global score. The comparison of scores obtained from the SADL questionnaire demonstrated a difference in the "Personal Image" subscale with a better score for the transcutaneous implant. Furthermore, the Global Score of the SADL questionnaire was statistically different between groups. Other subscales did not show any significant difference. A Spearman's ρ correlation test was used to evaluate if the age could influence the SRT results; no correlation was found between age and SRT. Furthermore, the same test was used to confirm a negative correlation between SRT and the global benefit of the APHAB questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The current research confirms the absence of statistically significant differences comparing percutaneous and transcutaneous implants. The Matrix sentence test has shown the comparability of the two implants in the speech-in-noise intelligibility. Actually, the choice of the implant type can be done according to the patient's personal needs, the surgeon's experience, and the patient anatomy.

Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study.

PURPOSE: The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Fifteen patients were selected. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Pure-Tone Average (PTA) air conduction range of hearing threshold at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz from 15 dB HL to 75 dB HL. Patients were assigned in three groups according to the hearing aid used: Extended wear, RITE, and CIC. Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with hearing aids, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by hearing aids. RESULTS: No differences were demonstrated in the Matrix sentence test between the groups. A statistically significant difference was present between the "Personal image" of patients with EW and RITE with a p value of 0.01 (better outcome using EW). For the APHAB questionnaire, a significant difference was present in the "Aversiveness" of the patients with EW in comparison to CIC and RITE with a p value of 0.01 (higher aversiveness of sound using EW). CONCLUSION: In terms of audiological advantage, extended ear hearing aids are similar to RITE and CIC as demonstrated from the Matrix speech reception threshold. The result was confirmed using the APHAB questionnaire. Extended wear devices are better than daily hearing aids concerning the "personal image".

Frequency-lowering processing to improve speech-in-noise intelligibility in patients with age-related hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: Modern hearing aids use various signal-processing strategies to improve speech intelligibility. In this manuscript, we studied the linear frequency transposition (LFT), a frequency-lowering algorithm, in patients with age-related hearing loss. Frequency-lowering algorithms transpose high-frequency sounds to a lower-frequency band. The study aimed to assess whether LFT could be used as a tool to improve speech intelligibility in patients with a better high-frequency preservation. METHODS: The study population consisted of 77 patients (age average 74.8 ± 12.4) wearing hearing aids with an open or tulip coupling system with age-related hearing loss. The unaided air conduction pure tone average (PTA) at 500, 1000, 2000 Hz was 43.5 ± 14.3 dB; the unaided word recognition score (WRS) average was 53.7 ± 12.5%. We compared WRS in all patients with the hearing aid turned on, in "quiet" and using a "pink" and "babble" masking noise. Three hearing aid settings were tested in each acoustic conditions: no transposition (NT), high transposition (HT), and low transposition (LT). "High" and "low" refer to the "start frequency"; all sounds above the start frequency are transposed in a lower-frequency band. When the start frequency was suggested by the fitting software, we called the condition "high transposition"; when the start frequency was set at the lowest possible value provided by the fitting software, we called the condition "low transposition". The quality of the voice was also assessed asking the patient to give a score from 1 to 10, where 10 was the maximum listening comfort [quality of voice score (QVS)]. RESULTS: Collected data were compared for each condition (NT, HT, LT, in quiet, pink noise and babble noise) and no statistically significant differences were found in WRS and QVS (quiet WRS p = 0.07, pink noise WRS p = 0.18, babble noise WRS p = 0.11, QVS p = 0.91). We selected 33 patients with a better WRS in babble noise using transposition (high and low). In this group, the age was significantly lower than patients who did not use transposition (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Linear frequency transposition is not useful to improve speech-in-noise intelligibility in patients with age-related hearing loss. Despite that no statistically significant differences were found, younger people could get advantages from the LFT when babble noise disturbs the listening of speech. The use of FL algorithm as a way to improve speech intelligibility in noisy environments should be always considered.

Cochlear Implant Surgery: Endomeatal Approach versus Posterior Tympanotomy.

The aim of the present study was to compare the posterior tympanotomy (PT) technique to the endomeatal approach. The endomeatal approach (EMA) for Cochlear Implant (CI) surgery was performed on 98 patients with procident lateral sinus or a small mastoid cavity, on 103 ears (Group A). Conventional mastoidectomy and PT was performed on the other 104 patients, on 107 ears (Group B). Data on all patients were then collected for the following: intra- and post-operative complications, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Vertigo Symptom Scale (VSS), duration of surgery, and postoperative discomfort. The difference in the total number of major and minor complications between the case group and the control group was not statistically significant. There was a statistically significant difference in discomfort between the two groups using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), both immediately postsurgery (p = 0.02) and after one month (p = 0.04). The mean duration of surgery was 102 ± 29 min for EMA and 118 ± 15 min for the PT technique (p = 0.008). EMA is a faster technique resulting in reduced postoperative patient discomfort in comparison to the PT method. The experience of the surgeon as well as the correct choice of surgical technique are fundamental to successful outcomes for cochlear implant surgery.

Real ear measurement (REM) and auditory performances with open, tulip and double closed dome in patients using hearing aids.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the importance of acoustic modifications generated by different commercially available ear-tips, focused on domes of receiver in the canal hearing aids using Real Ear Measurement (REM). METHODS: We enrolled 110 people selecting 200 ears bearers of hearing aids. In every patient, we performed REM and audiological tests with three different dome types: Open, Tulip and Double Closed (DC). Data about real-ear occluded gain (REOG), Pure Tone Average (PTA), Word Recognition Score (WRS) with aids switched on in Free Field, Ear and Auditory Comfort were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: REOG gain was statistically significant different between the three types of dome, with a DC that always closes the external auditory canal (EAC) (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the PTA (p = 0.11). Regarding the WRS there were statistically significant differences between Open and DC dome (p < 0.001) and between Tulip and DC dome (p < 0.001), with worse discrimination when using DC. Both auditory and ear comfort are worse in the DC than in the other two domes (p < 0.001). From measured REOG gain values, in 135 cases Tulip dome does not occlude the EAC, with a statistically significant difference compared to DC (p < 0.001; Odd Ratio 0.0012; 95% CI 0.001-0.0196). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the necessity to perform REM to evaluate if the prescription target is achieved, especially when tulip domes are used, because they may not occlude the ear canal, causing in some cases the reduction of the vocal discrimination.