Tinnitus is unusual for such a common symptom in that there are few treatment options and those that are available are aimed at reducing the impact rather than specifically addressing the tinnitus percept. In particular, there is no drug recommended specifically for the management of tinnitus. Whilst some of the currently available interventions are effective at improving quality of life and reducing tinnitus-associated psychological distress, most show little if any effect on the primary symptom of subjective tinnitus loudness. Studies of the delivery of tinnitus services have demonstrated considerable end-user dissatisfaction and a marked disconnect between the aims of healthcare providers and those of tinnitus patients: patients want their tinnitus loudness reduced and would prefer a pharmacological solution over other modalities. Several studies have shown that tinnitus confers a significant financial burden on healthcare systems and an even greater economic impact on society as a whole. Market research has demonstrated a strong commercial opportunity for an effective pharmacological treatment for tinnitus, but the amount of tinnitus research and financial investment is small compared to other chronic health conditions. There is no single reason for this situation, but rather a series of impediments: tinnitus prevalence is unclear with published figures varying from 5.1 to 42.7%; there is a lack of a clear tinnitus definition and there are multiple subtypes of tinnitus, potentially requiring different treatments; there is a dearth of biomarkers and objective measures for tinnitus; treatment research is associated with a very large placebo effect; the pathophysiology of tinnitus is unclear; animal models are available but research in animals frequently fails to correlate with human studies; there is no clear definition of what constitutes meaningful change or “cure”; the pharmaceutical industry cannot see a clear pathway to distribute their products as many tinnitus clinicians are non-prescribing audiologists. To try and clarify this situation, highlight important areas for research and prevent wasteful duplication of effort, the British Tinnitus Association (BTA) has developed a Map of Tinnitus. This is a repository of evidence-based tinnitus knowledge, designed to be free to access, intuitive, easy to use, adaptable and expandable.

To investigate the incidence of tinnitus that burdens the health service in England. This was an observational study of 4.7 million residents of England under 85 years of age who were at risk for developing clinically significant tinnitus (sigT). SigT was defined by a discharge from hospital with a primary diagnosis of tinnitus, or a primary care recording of tinnitus with subsequent related medical follow-up within 28 days. The database used was the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and individual records were linked to additional data from the Hospital Episode Statistics. The observational period was from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2011. Age-, gender-, and calendar year-specific incidence rates for and cumulative incidences of sigT were estimated and a projection of new cases of sigT between 2012 and 2021 was performed. There were 14,303 incident cases of sigT identified among 26.5 million person-years of observation. The incidence rate was 5.4 new cases of sigT per 10,000 person-years (95% confidence interval: 5.3 to 5.5). The incidence rate did not depend on gender but increased with age, peaking at 11.4 per 10,000 in the age group 60 to 69 years. The annual incidence rate of sigT increased from 4.5 per 10,000 person-years in 2002 to 6.6 per 10,000 person-years in 2011. The 10-year cumulative incidence of sigT was 58.4 cases (95% confidence interval: 57.4 to 59.4) per 10,000 residents. Nearly 324,000 new cases of sigT are expected to occur in England between 2012 and 2021. Tinnitus presents a burden to the health care system that has been rising in recent years. Population-based studies provide crucial underpinning evidence; highlighting the need for further research to address issues around effective diagnosis and clinical management of this heterogeneous condition.

There is no standard treatment pathway for tinnitus patients in the UK. Possible therapies include education and reassurance, cognitive behavioural therapies, modified tinnitus retraining therapy (education and sound enrichment), or amplification of external sound using hearing aids. However, the effectiveness of most therapies is somewhat controversial. As health services come under economic pressure to deploy resources more effectively there is an increasing need to demonstrate the value of tinnitus therapies, and how value may be continuously enhanced. The objective of this project was to map out existing clinical practice, estimate the NHS costs associated with the management approaches used, and obtain initial indicative estimates of cost-effectiveness. Current treatment pathways, costs and health outcomes were determined from the tinnitus literature, national statistics, a patient survey, and expert opinion. These were used to create an Excel-based economic model of therapy options for tinnitus patients. The probabilities associated with the likelihood of an individual patient receiving a particular combination of therapies was used to calculate the average cost of treatment per patient, average health outcome per patient measured in QALYs gained, and cost-effectiveness, measured by the average cost per QALY gained. The average cost of tinnitus treatment per patient per year is GB£717, equating to an NHS healthcare bill of GB£750 million per year. Across all pathways, tinnitus therapy costs £10,600 per QALY gained. Results were relatively insensitive to restrictions on access to cognitive behaviour therapy, and a subsequent reliance on other therapies. NHS provisions for tinnitus are cost-effective against the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effective threshold. Most interventions help, but education alone offers very small QALY gains. The most cost-effective therapies in the model were delivered within audiology.

The First International Conference on Hyperacusis gathered over 100 scientists and health care professionals in London, UK. Key conclusions from the conference included: (1) Hyperacusis is characterized by reduced tolerance of sound that has perceptual, psychological and social dimensions; (2) there is a growing awareness that children as well as adults experience symptoms of hyperacusis or misophonia; (3) the exact mechanisms that give rise to hyperacusis are not clear, but the available evidence suggests that functional changes within the central nervous system are important and in particular, hyperacusis may be related to increased gain in the central auditory pathways and to increased anxiety or emotional response to sound; (4) various counseling and sound therapy approaches seem beneficial in the management of hyperacusis, but the evidence base for these remains poor.