Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T09:17:04.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of antioxidant treatment in presbyacusis: prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2013

J F Polanski*
Affiliation:
Division of Otology and Neurotology, Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
O L Cruz
Affiliation:
Division of Otology and Neurotology, Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
*
Address for correspondence: Dr José Fernando Polanski, Rua Des Westphalen, 289 – 31/32, CEP 80010-110, Curitiba, Brazil Fax: +55 41 3045 9400 E-mail: jfpolanski@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

There are many well-known aetiological mechanisms of presbyacusis, and free radicals have been shown to play an important role. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of antioxidant agents on the hearing threshold of patients with presbyacusis.

Methods:

One hundred and twenty individuals were divided into four groups and received one of the following treatment schemes: ginkgo biloba dry extract, α-lipoic acid plus vitamin C, papaverine chlorhydrate plus vitamin E, or placebo. All participants were evaluated at recruitment and after six months, using pure tone audiometry (at isolated and average frequencies), speech recognition threshold and percentage index of speech recognition.

Results:

The various treatments had no effect on any of the evaluated measures of hearing, either between groups or over time.

Conclusion:

There was no statistically significant change in the hearing threshold after treatment with any of the tested drugs, during the study period.

Information

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013
Figure 0

Table I Patient demographic and clinical data

Figure 1

Table II Patient comorbidity and hearing data

Figure 2

Table III Audiological data

Figure 3

Table IV Treatment group comparisons