Tinnitus disability is a heterogeneous and complex condition, affecting more than 10% and compromising the quality of life of 2% of the population, with multiple contributors, often unknown, and enigmatic pathophysiology. The available treatment options are unsatisfactory, as they can, at best, reduce tinnitus severity, but not eliminate its perception. Given the spread of tinnitus and the lack of a standardized treatment, it is crucial to understand the economic burden of this condition. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Google Scholar, in order to identify all the articles published on the economic burden of tinnitus before 1 April 2021 (PROSPERO—International prospective register of systematic reviews—No: CRD42020180438). Out of 273 articles identified through our search strategy, only five articles from studies conducted in the United States of America (USA), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK) provided data on tinnitus’s economic costs. Three studies provided mean annual estimates per patient ranging between EUR 1544 and EUR 3429 for healthcare costs, between EUR 69 and EUR 115 for patient and family costs and between EUR 2565 and EUR 3702 for indirect costs, including productivity loss. The other two studies reported an annual mean cost of EUR 564 per patient for tinnitus-related clinical visits, and total costs of EUR 1388 and EUR 3725 for patients treated with a sound generator and Neuromonics Tinnitus Treatment, respectively. Our comprehensive review shows a gap in the knowledge about the economic burden of tinnitus on healthcare systems, patients and society. The few available studies show considerable expenses due to healthcare and indirect costs, while out-of-pocket costs appear to be less financially burdensome. Comprehensive health economic evaluations are needed to fill the gaps in current knowledge, using a unified method with reliable and standardized tools.

Current evidence on efficacy of hearing aids (HAs) on tinnitus perception and annoyance is considered insufficient due to the heterogeneity of tinnitus characteristics and of methods used in the relevant clinical studies. This is a scoping review focused on the methodological aspects of clinical studies evaluating the value of HA fitting as part of tinnitus management over the past 10 years. Thirty-four studies were included in the review, showing important heterogeneity in almost all aspects of inclusion criteria, comparators, outcome measures, follow-up time and HA fitting procedures. Although all studies show that HA fitting has a positive impact on tinnitus perception in patients with hearing loss, the methodological heterogeneity does not allow robust conclusions. Future studies taking into account the different nature and goals of each tinnitus therapeutic modality and adapting their methods, endpoints and timelines according to them could lay the groundwork for obtaining high-quality evidence on whether and how HA fitting shall be implemented in tinnitus management strategies.

Although a wide range of tinnitus management interventions is currently under research and a variety of therapeutic interventions have already been applied in clinical practice, no optimal and universal tinnitus treatment has been reached yet. This fact is to some extent a consequence of the high heterogeneity of the methodologies used in tinnitus related clinical studies. In this manuscript, we have identified, summarized, and critically appraised tinnitus-related randomized clinical trials since 2010, aiming at systematically mapping the research conducted in this area. The results of our analysis of the 73 included randomized clinical trials provide important insight on the identification of limitations of previous works, methodological pitfalls or gaps in current knowledge, a prerequisite for the adequate interpretation of current literature and execution of future studies.

Background: Falls have high socioeconomic costs. Information and communication technologies may support provision and monitoring of multisensory (MSR) physiotherapy programmes. The HOLOBalance platform used augmented reality holograms to provide patient-centred, individualised MSR.Objectives: To determine the platform’s safety, acceptability and feasibility, investigate functional gait and dynamic balance benefits and provide data for a definitive trial.Design and setting: Single-blinded pilot randomised controlled feasibility study. Interventions were conducted at clinical sites or participants’ homes in three European countries.Participants: Community-dwelling older adults (median age 73 years; 64.2% female) at risk of falls were enrolled (May 2020-August 2021).Methods: Participants were randomised to an 8-week clinic or home-based telerehabilitation MSR or OTAGO (control group) programme. Compliance, satisfaction, and adverse events determined feasibility. Clinical outcomes, assessed (blinded) within one-week prior to and post-intervention, included functional gait assessment (FGA), Mini BESTest and cognitive function.Results: Randomisation to completion rate was 76.15% with 109 participants recruited (n = 289 screened). Drop-out rate was similar between groups. Adverse events were reported (n = 3) in the control group. Sixty-nine percent would recommend the HOLOBalance intervention. Findings were similar for the home and clinic-based arms of each intervention; data was combined for analysis. FGA (95%CI [1.63, 4.19]) and Mini-BESTest (95%CI [1.46, 3.93]) showed greater improvement in the HOLOBalance group with a clinically meaningful change of 4/30 noted for the FGA.Conclusions: HOLObalance was feasible to implement and acceptable to older adults at risk of falls, with FGA and Mini-BEST improvements exceeding those for the OTAGO programme. A definitive trial is warranted.

Tinnitus is defined as the conscious awareness of a tonal or composite noise in the absence of a corresponding external acoustic source. This international multicentre, parallel-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial investigated whether combination therapies are superior to single interventions in the treatment of chronic subjective tinnitus. Tinnitus patients were recruited from five clinical sites across the EU and randomly assigned using a web-based system, stratified by their hearing and distress level, to single or combination treatment of 12 weeks. Cognitive-behavioural therapy, hearing aids, app-based structured counselling, or app-based sound therapy were administered either alone or as a combination of two treatments resulting in ten treatment arms. App-based treatments were delivered without direct contact or guidance from clinicians. The primary outcome was the difference in the change from baseline to week 12 in the total score of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) between single and combination treatments in the intention-to-treat population. All statistical analysis were performed blinded to treatment allocation. 674 patients of both sexes aged between 18 and 80 years were screened for eligibility. 461 participants (190 females) with chronic subjective tinnitus and at least mild tinnitus handicap were enroled, 230 of which were randomly assigned to single and 231 to combination treatment. Least-squares mean changes from baseline to week 12 were −11.7 for single treatment (95% confidence interval [CI], −14.4 to −9.0) and −14.9 for combination treatments (95% CI, −17.7 to −12.1), with a statistically significant group difference ( p = 0.034). Cognitive-behavioural therapy and hearing aids alone had large effect sizes, which could not be further increased by combination treatment. No serious adverse events occurred. In this trial involving patients with chronic tinnitus, all treatment arms showed improvement in THI scores from baseline to week 12. Combination treatments showed a stronger clinical effect than single treatment, however, no clear synergistic effect was observed when combining treatments. Instead, we observed a compensatory effect, where a more effective treatment offsets the clinical effects of a less effective treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04663828.

Purpose: Although findings in human studies trying to identify signs of cochlear synaptopathy (CS) are still controversial, several methodological restrictions exist, including inconsistencies in participants profiles, definition of study groups and inclusion criteria, diverse electrophysiological measurements settings and noise exposure history metrics and participants’ age range, which question the reliability of conclusions. Method: Two groups of individuals aged 18–41 participated in this study. The first group consisted of 24 musicians with well documented occupational noise exposure and the second one of 24 healthy controls. Groups were matched for age and gender. Inclusion criteria were normal and symmetrical pure tone audiometry and extended high frequency audiometry thresholds, as well as present and normal TEOAEs and DPOAEs. Outcome measures included SNR scores of speech in bubble audiometry and auditory brainstem response waves I, II and V amplitudes and latencies at three different presentation rates: 11, 33 and 44 clicks/s. Results: Wave I amplitude in musicians was significantly lower compared to controls at all presentation rates (11/s: p .043, 33/s: p .007 and 44/s: p .014). There was also a significantly greater reduction in wave I amplitude as well as in wave Ι/V amplitude ratio in the 33/s stimulus presentation in musicians compared to the control group (p .02 and .01, respectively). Finally, lower wave I amplitudes were found in musicians with auditory symptoms compared to musicians without symptoms at the 44/s presentation rate (p = .002). Conclusion: The ABR findings in our study are suggestive of possible increased prevalence of CS in musicians. Wave I amplitude was lower in Musicians group compared to matched controls. Furthermore, there was a greater reduction of wave I amplitude and wave Ι/V amplitude ratio at higher stimulation rates, which would support their use in CS studies.