Kelly A King1, Carmen C Brewer1. 1. a Audiology Unit, Otolaryngology Branch , National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , MD , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Define clinical trials and adverse event (AE) monitoring from the perspective of the audiologist. Rationalise the importance of audiology's involvement before, during and after monitoring. Identify strengths and weaknesses in toxicity grading scales, and discuss factors that may influence these. DESIGN: Literature involving commonly cited grading scales used to capture ototoxicity is reviewed. Current regulations and language associated with clinical trial implementation and AE monitoring are described. Personal observations based on a variety of clinical populations are drawn from years of experience developing and employing ototoxicity monitoring protocols in a complex medical setting. RESULTS: Six commonly used grading scales for ototoxicity are systematically reviewed for strengths and weaknesses. Necessary considerations that inform selection of grading scales are presented. A review of and historical context for clinical trial development and AE monitoring is provided. CONCLUSIONS: The audiologist's role in therapeutic decision making goes beyond collection of the audiogram. Clear communication to stakeholders in ototoxicity monitoring is paramount, and toxicity grading scales are one tool to facilitate this exchange. Various factors should be considered in advance of selecting the most appropriate scale to capture hearing loss, and no scale is without limitation.
OBJECTIVES: Define clinical trials and adverse event (AE) monitoring from the perspective of the audiologist. Rationalise the importance of audiology's involvement before, during and after monitoring. Identify strengths and weaknesses in toxicity grading scales, and discuss factors that may influence these. DESIGN: Literature involving commonly cited grading scales used to capture ototoxicity is reviewed. Current regulations and language associated with clinical trial implementation and AE monitoring are described. Personal observations based on a variety of clinical populations are drawn from years of experience developing and employing ototoxicity monitoring protocols in a complex medical setting. RESULTS: Six commonly used grading scales for ototoxicity are systematically reviewed for strengths and weaknesses. Necessary considerations that inform selection of grading scales are presented. A review of and historical context for clinical trial development and AE monitoring is provided. CONCLUSIONS: The audiologist's role in therapeutic decision making goes beyond collection of the audiogram. Clear communication to stakeholders in ototoxicity monitoring is paramount, and toxicity grading scales are one tool to facilitate this exchange. Various factors should be considered in advance of selecting the most appropriate scale to capture hearing loss, and no scale is without limitation.
Authors: Johnnie K Bass; Jie Huang; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Kay W Chang; Shaum P Bhagat; Murali Chintagumpala; Ute Bartels; Sridharan Gururangan; Tim Hassall; John A Heath; Geoffrey McCowage; Richard J Cohn; Michael J Fisher; Giles Robinson; Alberto Broniscer; Amar Gajjar; James G Gurney Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Kristin R Knight; Lu Chen; David Freyer; Richard Aplenc; Mary Bancroft; Bonnie Bliss; Ha Dang; Biljana Gillmeister; Eleanor Hendershot; Dale F Kraemer; Lanie Lindenfeld; Jane Meza; Edward A Neuwelt; Brad H Pollock; Lillian Sung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Angela C Garinis; Gayla L Poling; Ronald C Rubenstein; Dawn Konrad-Martin; Timothy E Hullar; David M Baguley; Holly L Burrows; Jennifer A Chisholm; Amy Custer; Laura Dreisbach Hawe; Lisa L Hunter; Theodore K Marras; Candice E Ortiz; Lucretia Petersen; Peter S Steyger; Kevin Winthrop; Erika M Zettner; Khaya Clark; Michelle Hungerford; Jay J Vachhani; Carmen C Brewer Journal: Am J Audiol Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: Evangelia Tserga; Tara Nandwani; Niklas K Edvall; Jan Bulla; Poulam Patel; Barbara Canlon; Christopher R Cederroth; David M Baguley Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: E Clemens; B Brooks; A C H de Vries; M van Grotel; M M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; B Carleton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240