Antibiotics versus topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media

Topical azole treatments for otomycosis

BACKGROUND

Otomycosis is a fungal infection of the outer ear, which may be treated with topical antifungal medications. There are many types, with compounds belonging to the azole group ('azoles') being among the most widely used.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of topical azole treatments for otomycosis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The search date was 11 November 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with otomycosis comparing any topical azole antifungal with: placebo, no treatment, another type of topical azole or the same type of azole but applied in different forms. A minimum follow-up of two weeks was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) clinical resolution as measured by the proportion of participants with complete resolution at between two and four weeks after treatment (however defined by the authors of the studies) and 2) significant adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 3) mycological resolution and 4) other less serious adverse effects. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with 559 participants from Spain, Mexico and India. Three studies included children and adults; one included only adults. The duration of symptoms was not always explicitly stated. Mycological resolution results were only reported in one study. The studies assessed two comparisons: one type of topical azole versus another and the same azole but administered in different forms (cream versus solution). A. Topical azoles versus placebo None of the studies assessed this comparison. B. Topical azoles versus no treatment None of the studies assessed this comparison. C. One type of topical azole versus another type of topical azole i) Clotrimazole versus other types of azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole) Three studies examined clotrimazole versus other types of azoles. The evidence is very uncertain about the difference between clotrimazole and other types of azole in achieving complete clinical resolution at four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.07; 3 studies; 439 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The anticipated absolute effects are 668 per 1000 for clotrimazole versus 835 per 1000 for other azoles. One study planned a safety analysis and reported no significant adverse events in either group. The evidence is therefore very uncertain about any differences between clotrimazole and other types of azole (no events in either group; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Clotrimazole may result in little or no difference in mycological resolution at two weeks follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; 1 study; 174 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in other (less serious) adverse events at two weeks follow-up (36 per 1000, compared to 45 per 1000, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.41; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). ii) Bifonazole cream versus bifonazole solution One study compared bifonazole 1% cream with solution. Bifonazole cream may have little or no effect on clinical resolution at two weeks follow-up when compared to solution, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.57; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Bifonazole cream may achieve less mycological resolution compared to solution at two weeks after the end of therapy, but the evidence for this is also very uncertain (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Five out of 35 patients sustained severe itching and burning from the bifonazole solution but none with the bifonazole cream (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies that evaluated topical azoles compared to placebo or no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of clotrimazole on clinical resolution of otomycosis, on significant adverse events or other (non-serious) adverse events when compared with other topical azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole). There may be little or no difference between clotrimazole and other azoles in terms of mycological resolution. It may be difficult to generalise these results because the range of ethnic backgrounds of the participants in the studies is limited.

Topical antibiotics with steroids for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial 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 antibiotics act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as steroids, antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in combined preparations with steroids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding a topical steroid to topical antibiotics in the treatment of 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 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 participants (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 combination of a topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class and a topical corticosteroid (steroid) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic and steroid compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic.

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; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies addressing 11 treatment comparisons. A total of 1901 participants were included, with one study (40 ears) not reporting the number of participants recruited, which we therefore could not account for. No studies reported health-related quality of life. The main comparisons were: 1. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus placebo or no treatment Three studies (210 participants) compared a topical antibiotic-steroid to saline or no treatment. Resolution of discharge was not reported at between one to two weeks. One study (50 'high-risk' children) reported results at more than four weeks by ear and we could not adjust the results to by person. The study reported that 58% (of 41 ears) resolved with topical antibiotics compared with 50% (of 26 ears) with no treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (123 participants) noted minor side effects in 16% of participants in both the intervention and placebo groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (123 participants) reported no change in bone-conduction hearing thresholds and reported no difference in tinnitus or balance problems between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (50 participants) 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 (123 participants) reported that no side effects occurred in any participants (very low-certainty evidence). 2. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus topical antibiotics (same antibiotics) only Four studies (475 participants) were included in this comparison. Three studies (340 participants) compared topical antibiotic-steroid combinations to topical antibiotics alone. The evidence suggests little or no difference in resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 82.7% versus 76.6% (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.21; 335 participants; 3 studies (4 study arms); low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of discharge after four weeks were reported. One study (110 participants) reported local itchiness but as there was only one episode in each group it is uncertain whether there is a difference (very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (395 participants) investigated suspected ototoxicity but it was not possible to determine whether there were differences between the groups for this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported serious complications. 3. Topical antibiotics with steroids compared to topical antibiotics alone (different antibiotics) Nine studies (981 participants plus 40 ears) evaluated a range of comparisons of topical non-quinolone antibiotic-steroid combinations versus topical quinolone antibiotics alone. Resolution of discharge may be greater with quinolone topical antibiotics alone at between one to two weeks compared with non-quinolone topical antibiotics with steroids: 82.1% versus 63.2% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 7 studies; 903 participants, low-certainty evidence). Results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were not reported. One study (52 participants) reported usable data on ear pain, two studies (419 participants) reported hearing outcomes and one study (52 participants) reported balance problems. It was not possible to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups for these outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (149 participants) reported no serious complications (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics with steroids in improving the resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-certainty evidence available. Amongst this uncertainty, we found no evidence that the addition of steroids to topical antibiotics affects the resolution of ear discharge. There is also low-certainty evidence that some types of topical antibiotics (without steroids) may be better than topical antibiotic/steroid combinations in improving resolution of discharge. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than 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.

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.