Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of “one‐airway‐one‐disease,” coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper‐ and lower‐airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper‐ and lower‐airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the “Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis.” This review determined that the “one‐airway‐one‐disease” concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme “allergic” (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll‐Like Receptors and IL‐17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL‐33 and IL‐5 for allergic and non‐allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitization patterns (mono‐ or pauci‐sensitization versus polysensitization), (iii) severity of symptoms, and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and autoimmune diseases.

Tinnitus disturbs lives and negatively affects the quality of life of about 2% of the adult world population. Research has shown that the main cause of tinnitus is hearing loss. To analyze a possible association of the degree of hearing loss with the severity of tinnitus, we have performed a retrospective study using admission data on 531 patients suffering from chronic tinnitus. We have found that 83% of our tinnitus patients had a high frequency hearing loss corresponding to a noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). There was a significant correlation between the mean hearing loss and the tinnitus loudness (p < 0.0001). Interestingly, patients suffering from decompensated chronic tinnitus had a greater degree of hearing loss than the patients with compensated form of tinnitus. In addition, we demonstrate that the degree of hearing loss positively correlates with the two subscales (“intrusiveness” and “auditory perceptional difficulties”) of the Tinnitus Questionnaire. Our retrospective study provides indirect evidence supporting the hypothesis that the degree of noise-induced hearing loss influences the severity of tinnitus.

Tinnitus is a common complaint in the candidates for cochlear implantation (CI). Tinnitus-related distress has often been measured in these patients using categorical ratings, which lack information about tinnitus severity, stress and health-related quality of life or their correlation. Here, using 4 validated questionnaires, we evaluated psychometric parameters and the quality of life of 32 postlingually deafened patients before and after CI. The data regarding pre-CI were collected retrospectively. Of all patients included in this study, 28 (87.5%) suffered from tinnitus before implantation. Following a mean of 24 months after surgery, these patients reported a significant decrease (39.2%) of tinnitus impairment, as measured by the Tinnitus Questionnaire. In none of the 28 patients has tinnitus worsened. Moreover, the 4 tinnitus-free patients remained so after the CI surgery. In addition, the implant supply resulted in 36.7% reduction in perceived stress and in 15.4% reduction in evasive coping. In addition, the focus on positive coping has improved by 12.3%, whereas the health-related quality of life improved by 53.4% in all patients. Tinnitus impairment and stress were reduced more strongly in patients who had initially higher scores. Interestingly, a significant correlation between the psychometric scores was found mainly after CI. Our results indicate that patients with higher tinnitus-related distress have a lower quality of life, lesser coping abilities and perceive more stress, but before implantation it is masked by deafness. We conclude that tinnitus-related screening of patients before and after CI is an important step in the identification of individuals who would benefit from specific fitting and/or tinnitus therapy after implantation.

Objective To evaluate whether the second cochlear implant (CI) provides any extra benefit with respect to health-related quality of life, tinnitus, and auditory abilities. Design The data were evaluated using validated questionnaires before and after the first and second CI supply. Preimplantation data were collected retrospectively. Patients Forty postlingually deafened adults, 11 male and 29 female subjects were included in this study. All patients were sequentially bilaterally implanted with a multi-channel CI for at least 6 months. Results The health-related quality of life assessed with the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire further increased after the second CI. In patients with initially higher level of tinnitus annoyance measured with the Tinnitus Questionnaire, the scores decreased after the first CI and remained steady after the second CI. Patients with initially lower level of tinnitus annoyance had a further decrease of the Tinnitus Questionnaire score after the second CI. Additionally, the second CI induced further improvement of auditory abilities, as assessed by the Oldenburg Inventory and the Freiburg monosyllable test in quiet and the HSM and Oldenburg sentence tests in noise. The quality of life scores correlated with the auditory abilities, especially after the second CI. Conclusion The present study provides evidence that the second CI leads to further increase in quality of life and reduction of tinnitus annoyance in addition to improvement of auditory abilities as compared with the first CI. Patients with bilateral CIs benefit from additional positive effects in all these fields.