Topical versus systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media

Biomaterials for non-invasive trans-tympanic drug delivery: requirements, recent advances and perspectives

Various non-invasive delivery systems have recently been developed as an alternative to conventional injections. Local transdermal administration represents the most attractive method due to the low systemic side effects, excellent ease of administration, and persistent drug release. The tympanic membrane (TM), a major barrier between the outer and middle ear, has a similar structure of the stratum corneum compared to the surface of the skin. After several attempts, non-invasive trans-tympanic drug delivery has been regarded as a promising option in the treatment of middle and inner ear diseases. The round window membrane (RWM) was a possible non-invasive delivery approach from the middle to inner ear. The improved permeability of nanocarriers crossing the RWM is a current hotspot in therapeutics for inner ear diseases. In this review, we include the latest studies exploring non-invasive trans-tympanic delivery to treat middle and inner ear diseases. Both passive and active delivery systems are described. A summary of the benefits and disadvantages of various delivery systems in clinical practice and production procedures is introduced. Finally, future possible approaches for its effective application as a non-invasive middle and inner ear drug delivery system are characterised.

Balloon Eustachian Tuboplasty and Grommet Insertion: A Combined Surgical Treatment for Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media with Eustachian Tube Dysfunction

Objectives. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Balloon Eustachian tuboplasty (BET) and grommet insertion in patients having chronic suppurative otitis media combined with eustachian tube dysfunction (CSOM-ETD). Methods. We evaluated the data of CSOM-ETD patients (n = 96) from January 2019 to January 2021, who were divided into the following groups: 48 cases underwent BET (BET group) and 48 cases underwent BET plus Grommet insertion (BET + Grommet group). The air-bone gap (ABG), Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire (ETDQ‐7) score, Eustachian tube inflammation scale, Chronic Otitis Media Outcome Test 15 (COMOT-15), Valsalva maneuver, and patient satisfaction were evaluated after surgery. Results. The postoperative ABG in the BET + Grommet group was better than that in the BET. In addition, the ABG was improved obviously in the BET + Grommet group at 6 and 12 months after the corresponding surgery. Moreover, the Eustachian tube inflammation scale, ETDQ-7, and COMOT-15 scores were reduced after the treatment with the combination of BET and Grommet insertion at 6 and 12 months. The postoperative ETDQ-7 score, Eustachian tube inflammation scale, and COMOT-15 score were lower in the BET + Grommet group than that in the BET group. The percentage of patients who could perform a positive Valsalva maneuver was significantly higher in the BET + Grommet group than that in the BET group at 6 months and 12 months after surgery with increased patient satisfaction. Conclusion. Our results demonstrate that BET plus Grommet insertion showed better treatment efficacy for patients with CSOM-ETD than BET alone via improving the Eustachian tube function hearing outcome and quality of life with less Eustachian tube inflammation.

Robust antibacterial activity of functionalized carbon nanotube- levofloxacine conjugate based on in vitro and in vivo studies

A new nano-antibiotic was synthesized from the conjugation of multi-walled carbon nanotubes with levofloxacin (MWCNT-LVX) through covalent grafting of drug with surface-modified carbon nanotubes in order to achieve an effective, safe, fast-acting nano-drug with the minimal side effects. This study is the first report on the evaluation of in vitro cell viability and antibacterial activity of nano-antibiotic along in addition to the in vivo antibacterial activity in a burn wound model. The drug-loading and release profile at different pH levels was determined using an ultraviolet–visible spectrometer. MWCNT-LVX was synthesized by a simple, reproducible and cost-effective method for the first time and characterized using various techniques, such as scanning electron microscope, transmission electron microscopy, and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller analysis, and so forth. The noncytotoxic nano-antibiotic showed more satisfactory in vitro antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus compared to Pseudomona aeruginosa. The novel synthetic nano-drug possessed high loading capacity and pH-sensitive release profile; resultantly, it exhibited very potent bactericidal activity in a mouse S. aureus wound infection model compared to LVX. Based on the results, the antibacterial properties of the drug enhanced after conjugating with surface-modified MWCNTs. The nano-antibiotic has great industrialization potential for the simple route of synthesis, no toxicity, proper drug loading and release, low effective dose, and strong activity against wound infections. In virtue of unique properties, MWCNTs can serve as a controlled release and delivery system for drugs. The easy penetration to biological membranes and barriers can also increase the drug delivery at lower doses compared to the main drug alone, which can lead to the reduction of its side effects. Hence, MWCNTs can be considered a promising nano-carrier of LVX in the treatment of skin infections.

Innate Immunity in the Middle Ear Mucosa

Otitis media (OM) encompasses a spectrum of clinical presentations ranging from the readily identifiable Acute OM (AOM), which is characterised by otalgia and fever, to chronic otitis media with effusion (COME) where impaired hearing due to middle ear effusion may be the only clinical symptom. Chronic suppurative OM (CSOM) presents as a more severe form of OM, involving perforation of the tympanic membrane. The pathogenesis of OM in these varied clinical presentations is unclear but activation of the innate inflammatory responses to viral and/or bacterial infection of the upper respiratory tract performs an integral role. This localised inflammatory response can persist even after pathogens are cleared from the middle ear, eustachian tubes and, in the case of respiratory viruses, even the nasal compartment. Children prone to OM may experience an over exuberant inflammatory response that underlies the development of chronic forms of OM and their sequelae, including hearing impairment. Treatments for chronic effusive forms of OM are limited, with current therapeutic guidelines recommending a "watch and wait" strategy rather than active treatment with antibiotics, corticosteroids or other anti-inflammatory drugs. Overall, there is a clear need for more targeted and effective treatments that either prevent or reduce the hyper-inflammatory response associated with chronic forms of OM. Improved treatment options rely upon an in-depth understanding of OM pathogenesis, particularly the role of the host innate immune response during acute OM. In this paper, we review the current literature regarding the innate immune response within the middle ear to bacterial and viral otopathogens alone, and as co-infections. This is an important consideration, as the role of respiratory viruses as primary pathogens in OM is not yet fully understood. Furthermore, increased reporting from PCR-based diagnostics, indicates that viral/bacterial co-infections in the middle ear are more common than bacterial infections alone. Increasingly, the mechanisms by which viral/bacterial co-infections may drive or maintain complex innate immune responses and inflammation during OM as a chronic response require investigation. Improved understanding of the pathogenesis of chronic OM, including host innate immune response within the middle ear is vital for development of improved diagnostic and treatment options for our children.

Efficacy of Otomicroscopy Combined with Otoendoscopy Double-Lens Technology-Assisted Tympanic Membrane Repair on Elderly Patients with Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media

Objective

To investigate the effect of otomicroscopy combined with otoendoscopy double-lens technology-assisted tympanic membrane repair on elderly patients chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).

Methods

120 elderly CSOM patients from January 2017 to July 2019 were selected and divided into the otomicroscopy group (n = 40), the otoendoscopy group (n = 40), and the double-lens group (n = 40) by the random number method. All patients were treated with tympanic membrane repair. The otomicroscopy group was assisted by otomicroscopy, the otoendoscopy group was assisted by otoendoscopy. and the double-lens group was assisted by otomicroscopy combined with otoendoscopy. The three groups of operations status, clinical efficacy, the incidence of adverse reactions, hearing improvement rate, and satisfaction rate with incision after 6 months were compared.

Results

The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, and VAS score of the otoendoscopy group and the double-lens group were all lower than those of the otoendoscopy group, and the operation time of the double-lens group was lower than that of the otoendoscopy group (P < 0.05). The clinical efficacy of the double-lens group was better than that of the otomicroscopy group and otoendoscopy group (P < 0.05). The adverse reaction rate of the otoendoscopy group and the double-lens group was lower than that of the otomicroscopy group, and the average postoperative air-bone conductance of the double-lens group was lower than that of the otomicroscopy group and the otoendoscopy group, and the hearing improvement rate was higher than that of the otomicroscopy and otoendoscopy groups (P < 0.05). The satisfaction rate with postoperative incision in the otoendoscopy group and double-lens group was higher than that in the otomicroscopy group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The double-lens technology-assisted tympanic membrane repair has an obvious effect on elderly patients with CSOM. Compared with the single-use otomicroscopy, the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, patient's dry ear condition, degree of surgical pain, clinical efficacy, adverse reaction rate, hearing improvement rate, and patient's incision satisfaction of the double-lens technology are better. Compared with the single-use otoendoscopy, the operation time, clinical efficacy, and hearing improvement rate of the double-lens technology are better.

Topical versus systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics are the most common treatment for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be administered both topically and systemically, and can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM such as ear cleaning (aural toileting).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical versus systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The studies compared topical antibiotics against systemic (oral, injection) antibiotics. We separated studies according to whether they compared the same type of antibiotic in both treatment groups, or different types of antibiotics. For each comparison we considered whether there was background treatment for both treatment groups, for example aural toileting (ear cleaning).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not, measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks up to four weeks, and after four weeks), health-related quality of life using a validated instrument, ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (445 participants), all with high risk of bias, were included. All but two studies included patients with confirmed CSOM, where perforation of the ear drum was clearly documented. None of the studies reported results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks or health-related quality of life. 1. Topical versus systemic administration of the same type of antibiotics (quinolones) Four studies (325 participants) compared topical versus systemic (oral) administration of ciprofloxacin. Three studies reported resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks and found that the topical administration may slightly increase resolution (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.76; 285 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). In these studies, aural toileting was either not mentioned, or limited to the first visit. Three studies (265 participants) reported that they did not suspect ototoxicity in any participants, but it is unclear how this was measured (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcomes of ear pain or serious complications. No studies reported results for hearing, despite it being measured in three studies. 2. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus aminoglycosides) One study (60 participants) compared topical ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin injected intramuscularly. No aural toileting was reported. Resolution of ear discharge was not measured at one to two weeks. The study did not report any 'side effects' from which we assumed that no ear pain, suspected ototoxicity or serious complications occurred (very low-certainty evidence). The study stated that "no worsening of the audiometric function related to local or parenteral therapy was observed". 3. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid) One study compared topical ofloxacin with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with all participants receiving suction ear cleaning at the first visit. It is uncertain if there is a difference between the two groups in resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks due to study limitations and the very small sample size (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.72; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if there is a difference between topical quinolone compared with oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with regards to ear pain, hearing or suspected ototoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome of serious complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a limited amount of low-quality evidence available, from studies completed over 15 years ago, to examine whether topical or systemic antibiotics are more effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the topical administration of antibiotics may be more effective than systemic administration of antibiotics in achieving resolution of ear discharge (dry ear). There is limited evidence available regarding different types of antibiotics. It is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not topical quinolones are better or worse than systemic aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.

Aural toilet (ear cleaning) for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Aural toileting is a term describing a number of processes for manually cleaning the ear. Techniques used may include dry mopping (with cotton wool or tissue paper), suction clearance (typically under a microscope) or irrigation (using manual or automated syringing). Dry mopping may be effective in removing mucopurulent discharge. Compared to irrigation or microsuction it is less effective in removing epithelial debris or thick pus. Aural toileting can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or topical antiseptics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of aural toilet procedures for people with CSOM.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving people (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. We included any aural toileting method as the intervention, at any frequency and for any duration. The comparisons were aural toileting compared with a) placebo or no intervention, and b) any other aural toileting method. We analysed trials in which background treatments were used in both arms (e.g. topical antiseptics or topical antibiotics) separately.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes were hearing, serious complications, and the adverse events of ear bleeding and dizziness/vertigo/balance problems.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies with a total of 431 participants (465 ears), reporting on two comparisons. Two studies included only children with CSOM in the community (351 participants) and the other study (80 participants) included children and adults with chronic ear discharge for at least six weeks. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of health-related quality of life, ear pain or the adverse event of ear bleeding. Daily aural toileting (dry mopping) versus no treatment Two studies (351 children; 370 ears) compared daily dry mopping with no treatment. Neither study presented results for resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks or between two to four weeks. For resolution of ear discharge after four weeks, one study reported the results per person. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference at 16 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.72; 1 study; 217 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. No results were reported for the adverse events of dizziness, vertigo or balance problems. Only one study reported serious complications, but it was not clear which group these patients were from, or whether the complications occurred pre- or post-treatment. One study reported hearing, but the results were presented by treatment outcome rather than by treatment group so it is not possible to determine whether there is a difference between the two groups. Daily aural toileting versus single aural toileting on top of topical ciprofloxacin One study (80 participants; 95 ears) compared daily aural toileting (suction) with administration of topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) ear drops in a clinic, to a single aural toileting (suction) episode followed by daily self-administered topical antibiotic drops, in participants of all ages. We are unsure whether there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 1 study; 80 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge at between two to four weeks. The results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were presented by ear, not person, and could not be adjusted to by person. One patient in the group with single aural toileting and self administration of topical antibiotic ear drops reported the adverse event of dizziness, which the authors attributed to the use of cold topical ciprofloxacin. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.95; 1 study; 80 participants, very low-certainty). No results were reported for the other adverse events of vertigo or balance problems, or for serious complications. The authors only reported qualitatively that there was no difference between the two groups in hearing results (very low-certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether or not treatment with aural toileting is effective in resolving ear discharge in people with CSOM, due to a lack of data and the poor quality of the available evidence. We also remain uncertain about other outcomes, including adverse events, as these were not well reported. Similarly, we are very uncertain whether daily suction clearance, followed by antibiotic ear drops administered at a clinic, is better than a single episode of suction clearance followed by self-administration of topical antibiotic ear drops.

Topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antiseptics, one of the possible treatments for CSOM, inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antiseptics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antiseptics or their application can cause irritation of the skin of the outer ear, manifesting as discomfort, pain or itching. Some antiseptics (such as alcohol) may have the potential to be toxic to the inner ear (ototoxicity), with a possible increased risk of causing sensorineural hearing loss, dizziness or tinnitus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. Two main comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) placebo or no intervention; and b) another topical antiseptic (e.g. topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of patients had received topical antiseptics a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of antibiotic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included. It was not possible to calculate the total number of participants as two studies only provided the number of ears included in the study. A. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus placebo or no treatment (all patients had aural toileting) Three studies compared topical antiseptics with no treatment, with one study reporting results we could use (254 children; cluster-RCT). This compared the instillation of boric acid in alcohol drops versus no ear drops for one month (both arms used daily dry mopping). We made adjustments to the data to account for the intra-cluster correlation. The very low certainty of the evidence means it is uncertain whether or not treatment with an antiseptic leads to an increase in resolution of ear discharge at both four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.16; 174 participants) and at three to four months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47; 180 participants). This study narratively described no differences in suspected ototoxicity or hearing outcomes between the arms (very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported results for health-related quality of life, adverse effects or serious complications. B. Topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B Two studies compared different antiseptics but only one (93 participants), comparing a single instillation of boric acid powder with daily acetic acid ear drops, provided any information for this comparison. The very low certainty of the evidence means that it is uncertain whether more patients had resolution of ear discharge with boric acid powder compared to acetic acid at four weeks (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.53; 93 participants), or whether there was a difference between the arms with respect to ear discomfort due to the low number of reported events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.81; 93 participants). Narratively, the study reported no difference in hearing outcomes between the groups. None of the included studies reported any of the other primary or secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to paucity of the evidence and the very low certainty of that which is available the effectiveness and safety profile of antiseptics in the treatment of CSOM is uncertain.

Antibiotics versus topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics and antiseptics kill or inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be applied topically or administered systemically via the oral or injection route. Antiseptics are always directly applied to the ear (topically).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antibiotics versus antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The intervention was any single, or combination of, antibiotic agent, whether applied topically (without steroids) or systemically. The comparison was any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent, applied as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. Two comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) topical antibiotics or b) systemic antibiotics. Within each comparison we separated where both groups of patients had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toilet and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven studies (935 participants) across four comparisons with antibiotics compared against acetic acid, aluminium acetate, boric acid and povidone-iodine. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of quality of life or serious complications. A. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones or aminoglycosides) It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge with acetic acid compared with aminoglycosides at one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.08; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. It was very uncertain if there was more ear pain, discomfort or local irritation with acetic acid or topical antibiotics due to the low numbers of participants reporting events (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.34; 2 RCTs; 189 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No differences between groups were reported narratively for hearing (quinolones) or suspected ototoxicity (aminoglycosides) (very low-certainty evidence). B. Topical antiseptic (aluminium acetate) versus topical antibiotics No results for the one study comparing topical antibiotics with aluminium acetate could be used in the review. C. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones) One study reported more participants with resolution of ear discharge when using topical antibiotics (quinolones) compared with boric acid ear drops at between one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.92; 1 study; 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that one additional person will have resolution of ear discharge for every five people receiving topical antibiotics (compared with boric acid) at two weeks. No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. There was a bigger improvement in hearing in the topical antibiotic group compared to the topical antiseptic group (mean difference (MD) 2.79 decibels (dB), 95% CI 0.48 to 5.10; 1 study; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence) but this difference may not be clinically significant. There may be more ear pain, discomfort or irritation with boric acid compared with quinolones (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 2 studies; 510 participants; low-certainty evidence). Suspected ototoxicity was not reported. D. Topical antiseptic (povidone-iodine) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones) It is uncertain if there is a difference between quinolones and povidone-iodine with respect to resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported qualitatively that there were no differences between the groups for hearing and no patients developed ototoxic effects (very low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of ear discharge beyond four weeks, or ear pain, discomfort or irritation, were reported. E. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) + aural toileting versus topical + systemic antibiotics (quinolones) One study reported that participants receiving topical and oral antibiotics had less resolution of ear discharge compared with acetic acid ear drops and aural toileting (suction clearance every two days) at one month (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; 100 participants). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks, ear pain, discomfort or irritation, hearing or suspected ototoxicity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of CSOM with topical antibiotics (quinolones) probably results in an increase in resolution of ear discharge compared with boric acid at up to two weeks. There was limited evidence for the efficacy of other topical antibiotics or topical antiseptics and so we are unable to draw conclusions. Adverse events were not well reported.