Search

Abstract Background Tinnitus affects around 15% of the population and can be a debilitating condition for a sizeable part of them. However, effective evidence-based treatments are scarce. One recommended treatment for tinnitus is cognitive behavioral therapy which has been found to be effective when delivered online. However, more treatments including mindfulness-based interventions have been studied recently in an attempt to facilitate the availability of effective treatments. There are promising findings showing great effects in reducing tinnitus-induced distress and some evidence about the efficacy of such intervention delivered online. However, there is a lack of evidence on how these two treatments compare against one another. Therefore, the aim of this study will be to compare Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for tinnitus against an Internet-delivered mindfulness-based tinnitus stress reduction intervention in a three-armed randomized controlled trial with a waiting list control condition. Methods This study will be a randomized controlled trial seeking to recruit Lithuanian-speaking individuals suffering from chronic tinnitus. The self-report measure Tinnitus Handicap Inventory will be used. Self-referred participants will be randomized into one of three study arms: Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy, Internet-delivered mindfulness-based tinnitus stress reduction intervention, or a waiting-list control group. Post-treatment measures will be taken at the end of the 8-week-long intervention (or waiting). Long-term efficacy will be measured 3 and 12 months post-treatment. Discussion Internet-delivered interventions offer a range of benefits for delivering evidence-based treatments. This is the first randomized controlled trial to directly compare Internet-delivered CBT and MBTSR for tinnitus in a non-inferiority trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05705323. Registered on January 30, 2023.

Objectives The objectives of this review were to identify the types of music-based interventions and associated accessibility challenges for people who have visual impairment (VI) and their reported effects on psychological, physiological and social well-being.Design A scoping review was developed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and guidelines. A narrative synthesis was conducted to map out the types of music-based interventions undertaken and to compare the therapeutic outcomes. The studies were evaluated according to the music reporting checklist.Results In total 5082 records were identified, 69 full-text articles were screened and 13 studies were included. Eleven studies included younger children and teenagers, two focused on adults with acquired VI. Ten studies involved active music therapy strategies and three used passive music listening. Eleven of the studies focused on social outcomes and two reported mental health. Although the studies reported that music-based intervention strategies improved psychosocial well-being in people with a VI, conclusions could not be drawn as robust outcome measures were not generally used and only four of the studies included any statistical analysis.Conclusions Although potential was evident, details of intervention protocols and training requirements were not sufficiently reported and further, high-quality evidence-based studies are required.

Background: The association between reporting adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination effects and those with a history of audiovestibular difficulties is unknown. The aim of this research is therefore to investigate adverse vaccination effects in adults with a history of Ménière’s disease. Specifically, the incidence of adverse effects, the factors associated with those reporting adverse effects and the relationship between the reporting of audiovestibular and other adverse effects. Methods: A mixed-methods exploratory cross-sectional survey study design was used. Data were collected from 333 members of the Finnish Ménière Association. The survey was designed to obtain demographic information that may be associated with having adverse effects or not, vaccination-specific information and adverse vaccination effects. Both health and audiovestibular adverse events were identified. Data analysis included comparing those reporting and not reporting adverse vaccination effects. Results: The mean age was 63 years with 81% being female. Of the 327 respondents who had one of the COVID-19 vaccinations (Comirnatry/ Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, or Moderna), 203 (62%) reported no adverse effects. The type of or number of vaccinations were not related to the reporting of adverse effects. The most frequently reported adverse effects were injection site tenderness (38%), arm pain (21%), fever (15%) and headaches (15%). Post-vaccination tinnitus and vertigo (both 7%) were the most frequently reported audiovestibular-related symptoms, followed by aural fullness (6%) and hearing loss (4%). Those reporting previous pre-vaccination vertigo were more likely to have post-vaccination vertigo. The presence of post-vaccination tinnitus, hearing loss, and aural fullness, predicted the presence of post-vaccination vertigo. Conclusions: A small proportion of patients with a history of Ménière’s disease may experience adverse post-vaccination effects. Further research is required to explore whether adverse post-vaccination audiovestibular effects are more prevalent in those with a history of otological disorders compared with the general population.

There are reports of associations between SARS-CoV2, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and auditory symptoms (hearing difficulty, tinnitus). However, most studies have relied on self-report and lack baseline and/or non-COVID control groups. This makes it problematic to differentiate if symptoms are associated with SARS-CoV2, COVID-19, the vaccine, psychosocial factors or recall bias. In this study, we differentiate these by comparing hearing and tinnitus survey data collected pre- and during the pandemic. The survey conducted during the pandemic asked about the onset and change in three types of symptom. Type One—known association (loss of smell, memory/concentration issues, persistent fatigue), Type Two—indeterminate association (auditory symptoms), and Type Three—no established association with COVID-19 (toothache). We hypothesized that if auditory symptoms are directly associated with COVID-19, their onset and change would be similar to Type One symptoms, but if indirectly associated (reflecting psychosocial factors and/or recall bias) would be more similar to Type Three symptoms. Of the 6,881 individuals who responded, 6% reported confirmed COVID-19 (positive test), 11% probably had COVID-19, and 83% reported no COVID-19. Those with confirmed or probable COVID-19 more commonly reported new and/or worsened auditory symptoms than those not reporting COVID-19. However, this does not imply causality because: (1) new auditory symptoms coincided with COVID-19 illness among just 1/3 of those with confirmed or probable COVID-19, and another 1/3 said their symptoms started before the pandemic—despite reporting no symptoms in the pre-pandemic survey. (2) >60% of individuals who had COVID-19 said it had affected their Type 3 symptoms, despite a lack of evidence linking the two. (3) Those with confirmed COVID-19 reported more Type 1 symptoms, but reporting of Type 2 and Type 3 symptoms did not differ between those with confirmed COVID-19 and those without COVID-19, while those who probably had COVID-19 most commonly reported these symptom types. Despite more reports of auditory symptoms in confirmed or probable COVID-19, there is inconsistent reporting, recall bias, and possible nocebo effects. Studies that include appropriate control groups and use audiometric measures in addition to self-report to investigate change in auditory symptoms relative to pre-COVID-19 are urgently needed.

This review aimed to systematically review what has been published regarding tinnitus during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic up to March 2021 by performing both narrative and quantitative meta-analyses. Of the 181 records identified, 33 met the inclusion criteria, which generally had a fair risk of overall bias. In the included, 28 studies focused on the impact of the COVID-19 virus on tinnitus and 5 studies focused on the impact of the pandemic on tinnitus. From the studies identifying the impact of COVID-19 on tinnitus, there were 17 cross-sectional studies (n = 8913) and 11 case series or case report studies (n = 35). There were 2 cross-sectional studies (n = 3232) and 3 pre-post-test design studies (n = 326) focusing on the impact of the pandemic on tinnitus. No consistent patterns were found regarding the presentation of the tinnitus or additional factors that could have tinnitus developing in the disease impact studies. For the pandemic impact studies, the associated stress and anxiety of the pandemic were consistently suggested to contribute to tinnitus experiences. The pooled estimated prevalence of tinnitus post COVID-19 was 8% (CI: 5 to 13%). Medical professionals should be aware that tinnitus might be more problematic following the pandemic or after having COVID-19.

Background: The association between reporting adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination effects and those with a history of audiovestibular difficulties is unknown. The aim of this research is therefore to investigate adverse vaccination effects in adults with a history of Ménière’s disease. Specifically, the incidence of adverse effects, the factors associated with those reporting adverse effects and the relationship between the reporting of audiovestibular and other adverse effects. Methods: A mixed-methods exploratory cross-sectional survey study design was used. Data were collected from 333 members of the Finnish Ménière Association. The survey was designed to obtain demographic information that may be associated with having adverse effects or not, vaccination-specific information and adverse vaccination effects. Both health and audiovestibular adverse events were identified. Data analysis included comparing those reporting and not reporting adverse vaccination effects. Results: The mean age was 63 years with 81% being female. Of the 327 respondents who had one of the COVID-19 vaccinations (Comirnatry/ Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, or Moderna), 203 (62%) reported no adverse effects. The type of or number of vaccinations were not related to the reporting of adverse effects. The most frequently reported adverse effects were injection site tenderness (38%), arm pain (21%), fever (15%) and headaches (15%). Post-vaccination tinnitus and vertigo (both 7%) were the most frequently reported audiovestibular-related symptoms, followed by aural fullness (6%) and hearing loss (4%). Those reporting previous pre-vaccination vertigo were more likely to have post-vaccination vertigo. The presence of post-vaccination tinnitus, hearing loss, and aural fullness, predicted the presence of post-vaccination vertigo. Conclusions: A small proportion of patients with a history of Ménière’s disease may experience adverse post-vaccination effects. Further research is required to explore whether adverse post-vaccination audiovestibular effects are more prevalent in those with a history of otological disorders compared with the general population.