无器质性病因的非特异性耳鸣的治疗。
Therapy of unspecific tinnitus without organic cause.
作者信息
Frank Wilhelm, Konta Brigitte, Seiler Gerda
机构信息
ARWIG - Arbeitskreis für wissenschaftsbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Wien, Österreich.
出版信息
GMS Health Technol Assess. 2006 Aug 30;2:Doc17.
INTRODUCTION
There is a variety of medical and non-medical therapies in practice, which were not evaluated regarding its effectiveness by any systematic evidence oriented investigation. A number of therapies of medical and non-medical type try to treat the different types of tinnitus. The evidence in the scientific literature also had to be cleared in the field of diagnosis and classification as well as medical/psychiatric/psychological procedures of existing medical therapy.
QUESTION
The HTA report had to investigate the following questions: Which evidence do diagnostic methods in recognition of tinnitus have? Which types of therapy show medical effectiveness at the acute or chronic tinnitus without an organic cause? Which consequences (need for further research, future procedures) can be drawn?
METHODOLOGY
In the following databases "tinnitus" was searched according to the search string: HTA97; INAHTA; CDAR94; CDSR93; CCTR93; ME66; ME0A; HT83; SM78; CA66; CB85; BA70; BA93; EM74; IS74; ET80; EB94; IA70; AZ72; CV72; GE79; EU93; HN69; ED93; EA08
RESULT
1932 studies, unsorted after assessment in accordance with EBM criterions, selection: 409 studies. Due to the completely heterogeneous representation modes of the therapeutic approaches at the treatment of the chronic tinnitus no quantitative synthesis method could be performed. Therefore the methodology of a qualitative overview has been carried out.
RESULTS
The diagnostic confirmation of the non-specific tinnitus without organic cause meets with the problem of the assurance of the diagnosis tinnitus. According to the current opinion the stepwise diagnostics is carried out also in the case of the so called subjective tinnitus. Nothing can be said about the evidence of these procedures since no publication was found about that. A study concerning the evidence of the diagnostic questionnaires from Goebel and Hiller [1] comes to the end that the tinnitus questionnaire frequently used (TF) [2] is the best evaluated procedure. The number of therapies which treat tinnitus is exceptionally high and makes clear, that the search for "the" tinnitus therapy is still going on. According to the current knowledge tinnitus genesis is multifactorial and therefore there can't be any standard therapy for tinnitus. The following seven categories can be distinguished: AD 1: MACHINE-AIDED ACOUSTIC THERAPIES From many studies regarding machine-aided acoustic therapy of tinnitus only two showed an evidence degree that allows scientifically correct statements about the effectiveness of these procedures. Selectively significant improvements could be shown in the comparison with a placebo (apparatus switched off) a superiority of tinnitus-maskers. AD 2: ELECTROSTIMULATION In an application study of electro-stimulation the results were not evaluated statistically, but it was described descriptively that a successful medical treatment can be expected in about 50% of the cases. AD 3: PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY PROCEDURES Hypnosis did not show positive effectiveness. With regard to biofeedback it can be concluded that this method can be effective in individual cases, however regarded as unreliable from missing reproducibility. Neurobiofeedback could prove that it had a positive therapeutic effect. From eight controlled studies to relaxation techniques and cognitive behaviour therapy four studies showed a therapeutic effectiveness and four failed. Combined therapies proved generally to be more effective than individual types. The behaviour medical psychotherapy could show a positive therapy effect. In a study with cognitive therapy and relaxation (three groups, a passive relaxation, an active relaxation and a cognitive therapy) short-term successes could be stated (for one month), however, the parameters of success returned on the initial value after four months. Also only coincidental and short-term successes could be achieved with cognitive behaviour therapy training, autogenic training and structured group psychotherapy. AD 4: TINNITUS RETRAINING THERAPY (TRT) Unfortunately, the published results of the TRT are methodically frequently bad and scientific of a poor value. Many of the studies presented until now regarding tinnitus retraining therapy are not informative in their scientific context. In a study with 95 patients with a chronic tinnitus TRT could show a significant, more than six months lasting stable success by comparison to a combination of TET with group behaviour therapy (improvement be achieved around at least ten points in the tinnitus questionnaire (TF)). AD 5: PHARMACOLOGICAL THERAPIES Rheological drugs (medicines for hemodilution) could not show any statistically significant effect in the treatment of tinnitus. Studies to the medical treatment with tocainides (lidocaine) showed repeatable positive effects on tinnitus in higher dosages (as of 1.2 mg/day). Lamotrigine as a medicine had an effect positively only at with a small fraction of patients. Two studies with GABA receptor agonists could not prove therapeutic effects for tinnitus. Undesired side-effects were observed. Injections with Carvoverine (a glutamate antagonist) achieved significantly successes with a special form of tinnitus, the "Cochlear-synaptic tinnitus (CST)". A tricyclic antidepressant (Amitriptilin) could prove superiority against placebo. This effect could be confirmed in another study. However Clonazepame (a benzodiazepine), could not achieve any improvement. Short-term improvements were achieved with other benzodiazepines (Clonazepame, Diazepam, Flurazepame, Oxacepame and Alprazolame). A German retrospective study suggests a graded pharmacological therapy by means of rheological infusion therapy, applications of neurotransmitters, and injections of lidocaine. This method achieved a disappearance or a recovery of the complaints at 95.3% of the acute and 26.7% of the chronic cases. AD 6: SURGICAL PROCEDURES The effects of the operative excision of the stapes (stapedectomy) showed significant effects concerning tinnitus. This method is a routine operation to recover hearing, effects on tinnitus were observed only coincidently. There are generally high frequencies of improvements of tinnitus after cochlea implantations; however the risk of deterioration is present with this method. AD 7: OTHER AND ALTERNATIVE THERAPY PROCEDURES The hyperbaric oxygen therapy can be considered successful after acute events with tinnitus. The therapy should be started in the first month after appearance of the tinnitus. The methods transcranial-, electromagnetic and transcutaneous nerve stimulations did not show any significant effects on tinnitus. Also low laser medical treatment showed disappointing effects. The "pneumatic external contra-pulsation" is described as an unproblematic usable procedure by the authors of the examination, but 10% of the patients had to stop the medical treatment because of complications associated with the medical treatment. Acupuncture showed significant improvements in comparison to medical treatment. The effectiveness of this therapy could not be reproduced in another study. Five other studies between 1993 and 1999 also did not show any therapeutic effect of this method. Gingko-Biloba preparations did not show any positive effects in large-scale studies on tinnitus.
DISCUSSION
Neither the diagnostic procedures nor the therapeutic methods or the individual therapies reach a usual scientific level in medicine. Unsolved problems concerning insurance, economic as well as legal problems have resulted for the patients and for caring stuff from this unsatisfactory situation. Numerous competitive tinnitus emergence models led to an incredible creativity in trying out different therapy approaches. No convergence of the therapy procedures can be seen within the last decades of tinnitus research, contrariwise there is always more and more "creativity" of new approaches. Priority has to be given to find the cause of tinnitus since therapies are a consequence of a better understanding of these symptoms that evidence oriented investigations on an usual scientific level can be started.
CONCLUSION
The innumerable therapeutic approaches, seeming completely incoherent to their effects should be coordinated on the meaningfulness, on the success parameters and with patient safety in light of the most plausible explanation models for non-specific chronic Tinnitus. To this the facilities of competence centres or related science- directing facilities are recommendable. Examinations which are carried out also with small numbers show often methodical insufficiencies. It is necessary that minimal requirements on a scientifically clinical experiment, such as design, case number calculation, analytic statistics, control group, are fulfilled. It is recommendable, that further research has to be promoted regarding tinnitus causes that a coordinated evidence-orientated treatment will be developed.
引言
目前有多种医学和非医学疗法在实际应用,但尚未有任何基于系统证据的研究对其有效性进行评估。许多医学和非医学类型的疗法都试图治疗不同类型的耳鸣。科学文献中的证据在耳鸣的诊断和分类领域以及现有医学疗法的医学/精神科/心理程序方面也有待明确。
问题
卫生技术评估(HTA)报告必须调查以下问题:耳鸣诊断方法有哪些证据?哪些类型的疗法对无器质性病因的急性或慢性耳鸣具有医学有效性?可以得出哪些结论(进一步研究的必要性、未来程序)?
方法
在以下数据库中,根据搜索字符串“耳鸣”进行搜索:HTA97;INAHTA;CDAR94;CDSR93;CCTR93;ME66;ME0A;HT83;SM78;CA66;CB85;BA70;BA93;EM74;IS74;ET80;EB94;IA70;AZ72;CV72;GE79;EU93;HN69;ED93;EA08
结果
1932项研究,未按照循证医学标准进行评估分类,筛选出409项研究。由于慢性耳鸣治疗方法的呈现模式完全异质,无法进行定量综合分析。因此,采用了定性综述的方法。
结果
无器质性病因的非特异性耳鸣的诊断确认存在耳鸣诊断的保证问题。根据目前的观点,在所谓的主观性耳鸣病例中也进行逐步诊断。由于未找到相关出版物,无法确定这些程序的证据。一项关于Goebel和Hiller [1]诊断问卷证据的研究得出结论,常用的耳鸣问卷(TF)[2]是评估最好的程序。治疗耳鸣的疗法数量异常之多,这表明对“耳鸣疗法”的探索仍在继续。根据目前的知识,耳鸣的成因是多因素的,因此不可能有任何标准的耳鸣疗法。可区分以下七类:AD 1:机器辅助声学疗法 从许多关于耳鸣机器辅助声学疗法的研究中,只有两项显示出证据程度,能够对这些程序的有效性做出科学正确的陈述。与安慰剂(设备关闭)相比,耳鸣掩蔽器有选择性的显著改善。AD 2:电刺激 在一项电刺激应用研究中,结果未进行统计学评估,但描述性地表明,约50%的病例有望成功治疗。AD 3:心理治疗程序 催眠未显示出积极效果。关于生物反馈,可以得出结论,这种方法在个别情况下可能有效,但由于缺乏可重复性,被认为不可靠。神经生物反馈已证明具有积极的治疗效果。在八项关于放松技术和认知行为疗法的对照研究中,四项研究显示出治疗效果,四项失败。联合疗法通常比单一疗法更有效。行为医学心理治疗显示出积极的治疗效果。在一项认知疗法和放松的研究(三组,被动放松、主动放松和认知疗法)中,短期成功(持续一个月)可以确定,但四个月后成功参数恢复到初始值。认知行为疗法训练、自生训练和结构化团体心理治疗也只能取得偶然和短期的成功。AD 4:耳鸣再训练疗法(TRT) 不幸的是,TRT已发表的结果在方法上常常不佳,科学价值较低。到目前为止,许多关于耳鸣再训练疗法的研究在科学背景下并无信息价值。在一项对95名慢性耳鸣患者的研究中,与TET和团体行为疗法相结合相比,TRT显示出显著的、持续超过六个月的稳定成功(耳鸣问卷(TF)至少提高十分左右)。AD 5:药物疗法 流变药物(血液稀释药物)在耳鸣治疗中未显示出任何统计学显著效果。关于妥卡尼(利多卡因)药物治疗的研究表明,高剂量(每日1.2毫克及以上)对耳鸣有可重复的积极效果。拉莫三嗪作为一种药物仅对一小部分患者有效果。两项关于GABA受体激动剂的研究未能证明对耳鸣有治疗效果。观察到有不良副作用。注射卡波维林(一种谷氨酸拮抗剂)对一种特殊形式的耳鸣,即“耳蜗突触性耳鸣(CST)”取得了显著成功。一种三环抗抑郁药(阿米替林)已证明优于安慰剂。另一项研究证实了这一效果。然而,氯硝西泮(一种苯二氮䓬类药物)未取得任何改善。其他苯二氮䓬类药物(氯硝西泮、地西泮、氟西泮、奥沙西泮和阿普唑仑)取得了短期改善。一项德国回顾性研究表明,通过流变灌注疗法、神经递质应用和利多卡因注射进行分级药物治疗。该方法在95.3%的急性病例和26.7%的慢性病例中使症状消失或缓解。AD 6:外科手术 镫骨手术切除(镫骨切除术)的效果对耳鸣有显著影响。该方法是恢复听力的常规手术,对耳鸣的影响只是偶然观察到。人工耳蜗植入后耳鸣改善的频率通常较高;然而,这种方法存在恶化的风险。AD 7:其他和替代治疗程序 高压氧疗法在耳鸣急性发作后可被认为是成功的。该疗法应在耳鸣出现后的第一个月开始。经颅、电磁和经皮神经刺激方法对耳鸣未显示出任何显著效果。低强度激光治疗也显示出令人失望的效果。检查的作者将“气动外部反搏”描述为一种使用无问题的程序,但10%的患者因与治疗相关的并发症而不得不停止治疗。与药物治疗相比,针灸显示出显著改善。另一项研究未能重现该疗法的有效性。1993年至1999年期间的其他五项研究也未显示该方法有任何治疗效果。银杏叶制剂在大规模耳鸣研究中未显示出任何积极效果。
讨论
诊断程序、治疗方法或个别疗法在医学上均未达到通常的科学水平。这种不令人满意的情况给患者和护理人员带来了保险、经济以及法律方面的未解决问题。众多相互竞争的耳鸣发病模型导致在尝试不同治疗方法时产生了惊人的创造力。在过去几十年的耳鸣研究中,未发现治疗程序的趋同,相反,新方法的“创造力”越来越多。由于治疗是更好地理解这些症状的结果,因此必须优先找到耳鸣的原因,以便能够在通常的科学水平上开展基于证据的调查。
结论
鉴于对非特异性慢性耳鸣最合理的解释模型,无数看似效果完全不相关的治疗方法应在意义、成功参数和患者安全方面进行协调。为此,推荐能力中心或相关科学指导机构的设施。少量样本的研究往往在方法上存在不足。必须满足科学临床实验的最低要求,如设计、病例数计算、分析统计、对照组等。建议促进对耳鸣病因的进一步研究,以开发协调的循证治疗方法。