A retrospective cohort study identifies initial hearing severity as a key prognostic factor in otitis media, suggesting that treatment might improve outcomes.
Objective: To identify prognostic factors for hearing outcomes in patients with otitis media with ANCA-associated vasculitis (OMAAV). Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: A total of 45 ears from 24 patients with OMAAV were followed up for more than 1 year after treatment. Interventions: Corticosteroids with or without immunosuppressive agents. Main outcome measures: The final hearing outcome was defined as good (≤30 dB) or poor (>30 dB) based on the average air conduction at 5 frequencies. Potential prognostic factors were analyzed by constructing a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The mean hearing level before treatment was 62.5 dB. Twelve ears (26.7%) achieved a final hearing of ≤30 dB. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the pretreatment air-conduction threshold was significantly associated with good hearing outcomes (OR = 33.6, P = 0.005). The area under the ROC curve for pretreatment hearing level was 0.946, demonstrating high accuracy. The cutoff value set at 50 dB had the best combination of sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (84.8%) for predicting good hearing outcomes. Other variables, including C-reactive protein level, age, systemic involvement of ANCA-associated vasculitis, and treatment intensity, were not significant predictors. Conclusions: Pretreatment hearing level is a powerful predictor of the final auditory outcome in OMAAV. Early diagnosis and prompt initiation of treatment may improve long-term hearing prognosis. The hearing level, rather than the systemic involvement of the disease, should be prioritized when determining the therapeutic intensity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakada et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: