4.7 Review

Biomarkers Suggesting Favorable Prognostic Outcomes in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21197248

Keywords

sudden sensorineural hearing loss; biomarkers; prognosis; recovery

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government [NRF 2018R1A6A1A03025124, NRF 2019R1F1A1049878]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is a medical emergency, making detailed examination to determine possible causes and early treatment important. However, etiological examinations in SSNHL do not always reveal a cause, and several factors have been found to affect treatment outcomes. Various studies are being performed to determine the prognosis and effects of treatment in patients who experience sudden hearing loss, and to identify biomarkers associated with this condition. Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane database were searched using the key words SSNHL, prognostic, and biomarker. This search identified 4 articles in Embase, 28 articles in PubMed, and 36 in the Cochrane database. Of these 68 articles, 3 were duplicates and 37 were unrelated to the research topic. After excluding these articles, the remaining 28 articles were reviewed. Factors associated with SSNHL were divided into six categories: metabolic, hemostatic, inflammatory, immunologic, oxidative, and other factors. The associations between these factors with the occurrence of SSNHL and with patient prognosis were analyzed. Low monocyte counts, low neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and monocyte/high-density lipoproteins (HDL) cholesterol ratio (MHR), and low concentrations of fibrinogen, platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIIa, and TNF-alpha were found to be associated with good prognosis. However, these factors alone could not completely determine the onset of and recovery from SSNHL, suggesting the need for future basic and clinical studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available