Audiovestibular symptoms and facial nerve function comparing microsurgery versus SRS for vestibular schwannomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery and radiosurgery represent the most common treatment options for vestibular schwannoma. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcomes of surgery versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: The Cochrane library, PubMed, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched through 01/2021 to find all studies on surgical and stereotactic procedures performed to treat vestibular schwannoma. Using a random-effects model, pooled odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing post- to pre-intervention were derived for pre-post studies, and pooled incidence of adverse events post-intervention were calculated for case series and stratified by intervention type. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (18 pre-post design; three case series) with 987 patients were included in the final analysis. Comparing post- to pre-intervention, both surgery (OR: 3.52, 95%CI 2.13, 5.81) and SRS (OR: 3.30, 95%CI 1.39, 7.80) resulted in greater odds of hearing loss, lower odds of dizziness (surgery OR: 0.10; 95%CI 0.02, 0.47 vs. SRS OR: 0.22; 95%CI 0.05, 0.99), and tinnitus (surgery OR: 0.23; 95%CI 0.00, 37.9; two studies vs. SRS OR: 0.11; 95%CI 0.01, 1.07; one study). Pooled incidence of facial symmetry loss was larger post-surgery (14.3%, 95%CI 6.8%, 22.7%) than post-SRS (7%, 95%CI 1%, 36%). Tumor control was larger in the surgery (94%, 95%CI 83%, 98%) than the SRS group (80%, 95%CI 31%, 97%) for small-to-medium size tumors. CONCLUSION: Both surgery and SRS resulted in similar odds of hearing loss and similar improvements in dizziness and tinnitus among patients with vestibular schwannoma; however, facial symmetry loss appeared higher post-surgery.

Using a Patient Portal to Screen Patients for Symptoms After Starting New Medications.

OBJECTIVE: Conduct systematic proactive pharmacovigilance screening for symptoms patients experienced after starting new medications using an electronic patient portal. We aimed to design and test the feasibility of the system, measure patient response rates, provide any needed support for patients experiencing potentially drug-related problems, and describe types of symptoms and problems patients report. METHODS: We created an automated daily report of all new prescriptions, excluding likely non-new and various over-the-counter meds, and sent invitations via patient portal inviting patients to inquire if they had started the medication, and if "yes," inquire if they had they experienced any new symptoms that could be potential adverse drug effects. Reported symptoms were classified by clinical pharmacists using SOC MeDra taxonomy, and patients were offered follow-up and support as desired and needed. RESULTS: Of 11,724 included prescriptions for 9360 unique patients, 2758 (29.4%) patients responded. Of 2616 unique medication starts, patients reported at least 1 new symptom that represented a potential adverse drug reaction (ADR) in 678/2616 (25.9%). Nearly one-third of those experiencing new symptoms (30.3%) reported 2 or more new symptoms after initiating the drug. GI disorders accounted for 30% of the total reported ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic portal-based surveillance for potential adverse drug reactions was feasible, had higher response rates than other methods (such as automated interactive phone calling), and uncovered rates of potential ADRs (roughly 1 in 4 patients) consistent with other methods/studies.