Dataset Information

Blood Prestin Levels in Normal Hearing and in Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Recently, it has been hypothesized that blood prestin concentration levels may reflect cochlear damage and thus serve as an easily measurable, early sensorineural hearing loss (HL) biomarker. This is a scoping review aiming to identify and critically appraise current evidence on prestin blood levels and their temporal variation in rodents and humans with normal hearing and with sensorineural HL.

Design

This study was designed and held according to PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. With no limitation with regards to study type, animal and human studies focusing on prestin blood levels in normal hearing and in sensorineural HL were sought in major databases such as Medline, Central Scopus, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Results were then hand-searched. A data charting form was developed including the parameters of interest.

Results

Seven studies focusing on measuring prestin blood levels by means of ELISA in rodents and human subjects with normal hearing and noise-induced, drug-induced, or idiopathic sudden HL were found eligible and were included in the analysis. According to these proof-of-concept studies, prestin can be detected in the circulation of subjects with no HL; however, normal ranges remain unclear. After cochlear damage, blood prestin levels seem to initially rise and then return to near or below baseline. The degree of their change relates with subjects' degree of HL, damaged cochlear region and recovery. Prestin blood levels and their temporal variation seem to correlate with cochlear damage; however, methodological weaknesses, such as small sample size, lack of detailed phenotyping, insufficient exclusion of confounding factors, and short follow-up, do not allow for robust conclusions.

Conclusions

Current findings support the value of studying blood prestin levels in normal hearing and HL and highlight a need for larger-scale longitudinal research.

SUBMITTER: Iliadou E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8378539 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo compare inpatient treated patients with idiopathic (ISSNHL) and non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (NISSNHL) regarding frequency, hearing loss, treatment and outcome.MethodsAll 574 inpatient patients (51% male, median age: 60 years) with ISSNHL and NISSNHL, who were treated in federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012, were included retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.ResultsISSNHL was diagnosed in 490 patients (85%), NISSNHL in 84 patients (15%). 49% of these cases had hearing loss due to acute otitis media, 37% through varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease, 10% through Menière disease and 7% due to other reasons. Patients with ISSNHL and NISSNHL showed no difference between age, gender, side of hearing loss, presence of tinnitus or vertigo and their comorbidities. 45% of patients with ISSNHL and 62% with NISSNHL had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment (p < 0.001). The mean interval between onset of hearing loss to inpatient treatment was shorter in ISSNHL (7.7 days) than in NISSNHL (8.9 days; p = 0.02). The initial hearing loss of the three most affected frequencies in pure-tone average (3PTAmax) scaled 72.9 dBHL ± 31.3 dBHL in ISSNHL and 67.4 dBHL ± 30.5 dBHL in NISSNHL. In the case of acute otitis media, 3PTAmax (59.7 dBHL ± 24.6 dBHL) was lower than in the case of varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease (80.11 dBHL ± 34.19 dBHL; p = 0.015). Mean absolute hearing gain (Δ3PTAmaxabs) was 8.1 dB ± 18.8 dB in patients with ISSNHL, and not different in NISSNHL patients with 10.2 dB ± 17.6 dB. A Δ3PTAmaxabs ≥ 10 dB was reached in 34.3% of the patients with ISSNHL and to a significantly higher rate of 48.8% in NISSNHL patients (p = 0.011).ConclusionsISSNHL and NISSNHL show no relevant baseline differences. ISSNHL tends to have a higher initial hearing loss. NISSHNL shows a better outcome than ISSNHL.