XXXX in @entity2395 @entity1 treated with @entity68 chelation.

@entity1 @entity5532 @entity2167 @entity68 @entity23224 @entity1274 @entity27101 @entity2395
UNASSIGNED: The predictive value of pure-tone audiometry (PTA) in the early detection of @entity2167 has been questioned, particularly in the higher frequencies. Otoacoustic emissions testing appears to be more sensitive to cochlear insult than conventional PTA. We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study to compare the efficacy of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) testing with that of PTA as a method of audiologic monitoring. Our study group was made up of 159 @entity1 (318 ears)-69 males (43.4%) and 90 females (56.6%), aged 5 to 61 years (mean: 23.59    12.55). All @entity1 had been diagnosed with either @entity2395 major (BTM) or @entity2395 intermedia (BTI), and all had received at least 1 year of treatment within the previous year with an @entity68 chelator-either @entity27101 , @entity5532 ( @entity5532 in the United States), @entity23224 , or a combination of @entity5532 and @entity23224 . PTA and DPOAE evaluations were performed by the same audiologist using the same audiometer for all @entity1 . In the right ears, the overall incidence of @entity2167 as manifested by @entity1274 was 39.0% on PTA and 22.0% on DPOAE testing; in the left ears, the corresponding figures were 27.7 and 19.5%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of @entity2167 between the BTM and BTI groups with any of the four different drug regimens on PTA (p = 0.765, p = 0.378, p = 0.265, and p = 0.579, respectively) or on DPOAE testing (p = 0.890, p = 0.263, p = 0.390, and p = 0.340, respectively). Based on these data, we found no significant difference between PTA and DPOAE testing in their ability to detect @entity2167 . We conclude that periodic testing with both PTA and DPOAE is necessary for @entity1 with suspected @entity2395 in order arrive at a prompt diagnosis and initiate timely management.
