TY - JOUR
T1 - Contributions of Counseling and Sound Generator Use in Tinnitus Retraining Therapy
T2 - Treatment Response Dynamics Assessed in a Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial
AU - Formby, Craig
AU - Yang, Xin
AU - Scherer, Roberta W.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by Awards U01DC007411 (Formby) and U01DC007422 (Scherer) from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, which had no role in the design and conduct of the TRTT; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of this article; and decision to submit this article for publication. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of the Departments of the Navy, Air Force, Army, the Department of Defense (DoD), or the U.S. Government. The investigators and collaborators comprising the Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial Research Group are listed in Scherer and Formby (2019), including the participating military service members and civilian DoD employees who performed the approved study activities as part of their official duties. The data sets used and/or analyzed in this report are available from Scherer upon reasonable request. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT01177137. Lastly, we thank Richard Tyler and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful reviews and constructive criticism.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - Purpose: Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) has been widely used for 30 years, but its efficacy and the component contributions from counseling and sound therapy remain controversial. The purpose of this secondary analysis from the Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial (TRTT) was to compare treatment response dynamics for TRT (counseling and conventional sound generators) with partial TRT (pTRT; counseling and placebo sound generators) and standard of care (SOC; a patient-centered counseling control). Method: The TRTT randomized 151 participants with primary tinnitus (no significant hearing or sound tolerance problems) to TRT, pTRT, or SOC, each of which encouraged use of enriched environmental sound. The primary outcome, mean change in Tinnitus Questionnaire score assessed at baseline and follow-up across 18 months, was normalized for a common baseline and fitted with an exponential model. Time constants were estimated to quantify and compare the treatment response dynamics, which were evaluated for statistical significance using bootstrap analyses. Results: The change in response to TRT took less time to achieve than that for either pTRT or SOC, as demonstrated by time for normalized Tinnitus Questionnaire scores to decline to 63% and 99% of baseline TRT values: 1.2 months (95% CI [0.2, 1.9]) and 5.7 months (95% CI [0.9, 9.0]), respectively. Corresponding SOC values were 2.7 months (95% CI [1.5, 4.1]) and 12.4 months (95% CI [6.9, 19.0]), while those for pTRT were 2.2 months (95% CI [1.2, 3.4]) and 10.1 months (95% CI [5.7, 15.9]). The differences were significant for TRT versus SOC (p =.020), borderline significant for TRT versus pTRT (p =.057), but nonsignificant for pTRT versus SOC (p =.285). The magnitude of the asymptotic treatment response did not differ significantly among groups. Conclusion: Sound generator use in TRT increases treatment efficiency (beyond any advantage from enriched environmental sound) without affecting treatment efficacy (determined by counseling).
AB - Purpose: Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) has been widely used for 30 years, but its efficacy and the component contributions from counseling and sound therapy remain controversial. The purpose of this secondary analysis from the Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial (TRTT) was to compare treatment response dynamics for TRT (counseling and conventional sound generators) with partial TRT (pTRT; counseling and placebo sound generators) and standard of care (SOC; a patient-centered counseling control). Method: The TRTT randomized 151 participants with primary tinnitus (no significant hearing or sound tolerance problems) to TRT, pTRT, or SOC, each of which encouraged use of enriched environmental sound. The primary outcome, mean change in Tinnitus Questionnaire score assessed at baseline and follow-up across 18 months, was normalized for a common baseline and fitted with an exponential model. Time constants were estimated to quantify and compare the treatment response dynamics, which were evaluated for statistical significance using bootstrap analyses. Results: The change in response to TRT took less time to achieve than that for either pTRT or SOC, as demonstrated by time for normalized Tinnitus Questionnaire scores to decline to 63% and 99% of baseline TRT values: 1.2 months (95% CI [0.2, 1.9]) and 5.7 months (95% CI [0.9, 9.0]), respectively. Corresponding SOC values were 2.7 months (95% CI [1.5, 4.1]) and 12.4 months (95% CI [6.9, 19.0]), while those for pTRT were 2.2 months (95% CI [1.2, 3.4]) and 10.1 months (95% CI [5.7, 15.9]). The differences were significant for TRT versus SOC (p =.020), borderline significant for TRT versus pTRT (p =.057), but nonsignificant for pTRT versus SOC (p =.285). The magnitude of the asymptotic treatment response did not differ significantly among groups. Conclusion: Sound generator use in TRT increases treatment efficiency (beyond any advantage from enriched environmental sound) without affecting treatment efficacy (determined by counseling).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124440699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85124440699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00210
DO - 10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00210
M3 - Article
C2 - 35073492
AN - SCOPUS:85124440699
SN - 1092-4388
VL - 65
SP - 816
EP - 828
JO - Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders
JF - Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders
IS - 2
ER -