Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the effect of antioxidants and a vasodilator on overall safety and residual hearing preservation in cochlear implant patients.
Antioxidants
Cochlear implant
Free radical scavengers
Hearing loss
Hearing pill
Hearing preservation
Residual hearing preservation
Vitamins
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jul 2020
14 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
28
02
2020
accepted:
16
06
2020
entrez:
16
7
2020
pubmed:
16
7
2020
medline:
14
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The standard therapy for patients suffering from sensorineural hearing loss is cochlear implantation. The insertion of the electrode array into the cochlea, with potential mechanical trauma and the presence of this foreign body inside the cochlea, may lead to free radical formation and reduced blood perfusion of the cochlea which can result in a loss of residual hearing. Studies have suggested that a particular combination of the antioxidants vitamins A, C and E as well as the vasodilator magnesium (together: ACEMg) may protect the residual hearing. The potential protective effect of ACEMg on residual hearing preservation in cochlear implant (CI) patients was investigated in a single-centre, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II clinical trial. CI candidates with some residual hearing in low frequencies receiving MED-EL implants of different FLEX electrode array lengths were treated with ACEMg tablets or placebo respectively 2 days preoperatively and up to 3 months postoperatively. The study objective was to demonstrate that ACEMg is more efficacious than placebo in preserving residual hearing during cochlear implantation by comparing the hearing loss (change in hearing thresholds at 500 Hz from baseline) 3 months after the first fitting between the two treatment groups and to investigate the treatments' safety. Fifty-one patients were included in the study, which had to be terminated before the recruitment goal was reached because of IMP-resupply mismanagement of one partner. In the intention-to-treat population, 25 patients were treated with ACEMg and 24 patients with placebo. The mean hearing loss at 500 Hz was (± 15.84) 30.21 dB (placebo) or (± 17.56) 26.00 dB (ACEMg) 3 months after the initial fitting. Adjusting the postoperative hearing loss for the baseline residual hearing, planned electrode length and surgeon results in 8.01 dB reduced hearing loss in ACEMg-treated patients compared to placebo-treated ones. The safety analysis revealed that ACEMg was generally well-tolerated with adverse event frequencies below the placebo level. This is the first clinical trial investigating a drug effect on residual hearing in CI patients. These first-in-man data may suggest that a perioperative oral administration of ACEMg is safe and may provide protection of residual hearing in CI patients. EU Clinical Trial Register No. 2012-005002-22 . Registered on 6 December 2013. European Commission FP7-HEALTH-2012-INNOVATION-2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The standard therapy for patients suffering from sensorineural hearing loss is cochlear implantation. The insertion of the electrode array into the cochlea, with potential mechanical trauma and the presence of this foreign body inside the cochlea, may lead to free radical formation and reduced blood perfusion of the cochlea which can result in a loss of residual hearing. Studies have suggested that a particular combination of the antioxidants vitamins A, C and E as well as the vasodilator magnesium (together: ACEMg) may protect the residual hearing.
METHODS
METHODS
The potential protective effect of ACEMg on residual hearing preservation in cochlear implant (CI) patients was investigated in a single-centre, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II clinical trial. CI candidates with some residual hearing in low frequencies receiving MED-EL implants of different FLEX electrode array lengths were treated with ACEMg tablets or placebo respectively 2 days preoperatively and up to 3 months postoperatively. The study objective was to demonstrate that ACEMg is more efficacious than placebo in preserving residual hearing during cochlear implantation by comparing the hearing loss (change in hearing thresholds at 500 Hz from baseline) 3 months after the first fitting between the two treatment groups and to investigate the treatments' safety.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty-one patients were included in the study, which had to be terminated before the recruitment goal was reached because of IMP-resupply mismanagement of one partner. In the intention-to-treat population, 25 patients were treated with ACEMg and 24 patients with placebo. The mean hearing loss at 500 Hz was (± 15.84) 30.21 dB (placebo) or (± 17.56) 26.00 dB (ACEMg) 3 months after the initial fitting. Adjusting the postoperative hearing loss for the baseline residual hearing, planned electrode length and surgeon results in 8.01 dB reduced hearing loss in ACEMg-treated patients compared to placebo-treated ones. The safety analysis revealed that ACEMg was generally well-tolerated with adverse event frequencies below the placebo level.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first clinical trial investigating a drug effect on residual hearing in CI patients. These first-in-man data may suggest that a perioperative oral administration of ACEMg is safe and may provide protection of residual hearing in CI patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
EU Clinical Trial Register No. 2012-005002-22 . Registered on 6 December 2013.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
European Commission FP7-HEALTH-2012-INNOVATION-2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32665006
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04522-9
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04522-9
pmc: PMC7362557
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antioxidants
0
Vasodilator Agents
0
Vitamins
0
Magnesium
I38ZP9992A
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
643Subventions
Organisme : FP7 Health
ID : 304925
Références
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Jun;15(3):375-93
pubmed: 24590390
Free Radic Biol Med. 2020 Mar;149:51-63
pubmed: 31550529
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Sep;37(8):1006-15
pubmed: 27309713
Front Aging Neurosci. 2015 May 15;7:86
pubmed: 26029103
Clin Otolaryngol. 2008 Dec;33(6):536-45
pubmed: 19126127
Free Radic Biol Med. 2007 May 1;42(9):1454-63
pubmed: 17395018
Audiol Neurootol. 2014;19(5):293-309
pubmed: 25277083
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2015 Dec;35(6):433-41
pubmed: 26900250
Laryngoscope. 2018 Feb;128(2):482-489
pubmed: 28643327
Trials. 2016 Aug 08;17:394
pubmed: 27502589
Int J Audiol. 2013 Dec;52(12):838-48
pubmed: 23992489
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2012 Nov;295(11):1944-56
pubmed: 23044812
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 May - Jun;84(3):368-380
pubmed: 28888754
Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11 Suppl 1:49-56
pubmed: 17063011
Laryngoscope. 2013 Mar;123 Suppl 1:S1-14
pubmed: 23382052
Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14 Suppl 1:22-31
pubmed: 19390172
Transl Res. 2011 Jul;158(1):38-53
pubmed: 21708355
Hear Res. 2010 Jan;259(1-2):24-30
pubmed: 19732818
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006 Oct;49(5):1085-90
pubmed: 17077216
Otol Neurotol. 2013 Jan;34(1):61-5
pubmed: 23202149
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2012 Nov;295(11):1909-27
pubmed: 23044907
Otol Neurotol. 2013 Apr;34(3):526-31
pubmed: 23503094
Hear Res. 2017 Dec;356:93-103
pubmed: 29102129