Literature DB >> 25620313

Efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine in prevention of noise induced hearing loss: a randomized clinical trial.

Richard Kopke1, Martin D Slade2, Ronald Jackson3, Tanisha Hammill4, Stephen Fausti5, Brenda Lonsbury-Martin6, Alicia Sanderson3, Laura Dreisbach7, Peter Rabinowitz2, Peter Torre7, Ben Balough3.   

Abstract

Despite a robust hearing conservation program, military personnel continue to be at high risk for noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). For more than a decade, a number of laboratories have investigated the use of antioxidants as a safe and effective adjunct to hearing conservation programs. Of the antioxidants that have been investigated, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has consistently reduced permanent NIHL in the laboratory, but its clinical efficacy is still controversial. This study provides a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the safety profile and the efficacy of NAC to prevent hearing loss in a military population after weapons training. Of the 566 total study subjects, 277 received NAC while 289 were given placebo. The null hypothesis for the rate of STS was not rejected based on the measured results. While no significant differences were found for the primary outcome, rate of threshold shifts, the right ear threshold shift rate difference did approach significance (p = 0.0562). No significant difference was found in the second primary outcome, percentage of subjects experiencing an adverse event between placebo and NAC groups (26.7% and 27.4%, respectively, p = 0.4465). Results for the secondary outcome, STS rate in the trigger hand ear, did show a significant difference (34.98% for placebo-treated, 27.14% for NAC-treated, p-value = 0.0288). Additionally, post-hoc analysis showed significant differences in threshold shift rates when handedness was taken into account. While the secondary outcomes and post-hoc analysis suggest that NAC treatment is superior to the placebo, the present study design failed to confirm this. The lack of significant differences in overall hearing loss between the treatment and placebo groups may be due to a number of factors, including suboptimal dosing, premature post-exposure audiograms, or differences in risk between ears or subjects. Based on secondary outcomes and post hoc analyses however, further studies seem warranted and are needed to clarify dose response and the factors that may have played a role in the observed results.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25620313     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.01.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  30 in total

Review 1.  Otoprotectants: From Research to Clinical Application.

Authors:  Colleen G Le Prell
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2019-04-26

2.  Dietary supplement comprised of β-carotene, vitamin C, vitamin E, and magnesium: failure to prevent music-induced temporary threshold shift.

Authors:  C G Le Prell; A Fulbright; C Spankovich; S K Griffiths; E Lobarinas; K C M Campbell; P J Antonelli; G E Green; K Guire; J M Miller
Journal:  Audiol Neurotol Extra       Date:  2016-07-05

3.  Combination photobiomodulation/N-acetyl-L-cysteine treatment appears to mitigate hair cell loss associated with noise-induced hearing loss in rats.

Authors:  Chung-Ku Rhee; So-Young Chang
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 4.  Emerging Therapies for Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Matthew Gordon Crowson; Ronna Hertzano; Debara L Tucci
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 5.  Emerging therapeutic interventions against noise-induced hearing loss.

Authors:  Su-Hua Sha; Jochen Schacht
Journal:  Expert Opin Investig Drugs       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 6.206

6.  The influence of self-reported noise exposure on 2ƒ12 distortion product otoacoustic emission level, fine structure, and components in a normal-hearing population.

Authors:  Gayla L Poling; Jonathan H Siegel; Jungwha Lee; Sumitrajit Dhar
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Noise-induced hearing loss and its prevention: Integration of data from animal models and human clinical trials.

Authors:  Colleen G Le Prell; Tanisha L Hammill; William J Murphy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Novel oral multifunctional antioxidant prevents noise-induced hearing loss and hair cell loss.

Authors:  G D Chen; D M Daszynski; D Ding; H Jiang; T Woolman; K Blessing; P F Kador; R Salvi
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Deletion of Tmtc4 activates the unfolded protein response and causes postnatal hearing loss.

Authors:  Jiang Li; Omar Akil; Stephanie L Rouse; Conor W McLaughlin; Ian R Matthews; Lawrence R Lustig; Dylan K Chan; Elliott H Sherr
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 14.808

10.  Pharmacological Prevention of Noise-induced Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Avigeet Gupta; Sina Koochakzadeh; Shaun A Nguyen; Emily A Brennan; Ted A Meyer; Paul R Lambert
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.