A multi-centre open-label randomised non-inferiority trial comparing watchful waiting to antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media without perforation in low-risk urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (the WATCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The views of parents and carers on managing acute otitis media in urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of parents and carers regarding the management of acute otitis media in urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who are at low risk of complications living in urban communities.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study; semi-structured interviews and short telephone survey.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Interviews: purposive sample of parents and carers of urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (18 months - 16 years old) screened in Aboriginal medical services in Queensland, New South Wales, and Canberra for the WATCH study, a randomised controlled trial that compared immediate antibiotic therapy with watchful waiting for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with acute otitis media.

SURVEY

parents and carers recruited for the WATCH trial who had completed week two WATCH surveys.

RESULTS

We interviewed twenty-two parents and carers, including ten who had declined participation in or whose children were ineligible for the WATCH trial. Some interviewees preferred antibiotics for managing acute otitis media, others preferred watchful waiting, expressing concerns about side effects and reduced efficacy with overuse of antibiotics. Factors that influenced this preference included the severity, duration, and recurrence of infection, and knowledge about management gained during the trial and from personal and often multigenerational experience of ear disease. Participants highlighted the importance of shared decision making by parents and carers and their doctors. Parents and carers of 165 of 262 WATCH participants completed telephone surveys (63%); 81 were undecided about whether antibiotics should always be used for treating acute otitis media. Open-ended responses indicated that antibiotic use should be determined by clinical need, support for general practitioners' decisions, and the view that some general practitioners prescribed antibiotics too often.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents and carers are key partners in managing acute otitis media in urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Our findings support shared decision making informed by the experience of parents and carers, which could also lead to reduced antibiotic use for managing acute otitis media.

Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in childhood for which antibiotics are commonly prescribed; a systematic review reported a pooled prevalence of 85.6% in high-income countries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in 1997 and updated in 1999, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, CINAHL, LILACS and two trial registers. The date of the search was 14 February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo, and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: 1) pain at various time points (24 hours, two to three days, four to seven days, 10 to 14 days), and 2) adverse effects likely to be related to the use of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes were: 1) abnormal tympanometry findings, 2) tympanic membrane perforation, 3) contralateral otitis (in unilateral cases), 4) AOM recurrences, 5) serious complications related to AOM and 6) long-term effects (including the number of parent-reported AOM symptom episodes, antibiotic prescriptions and health care utilisation as assessed at least one year after randomisation). We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

Antibiotics versus placebo We included 13 trials (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries, which we assessed at generally low risk of bias. Antibiotics do not reduce pain at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01; 5 trials, 1394 children; high-certainty evidence), or at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.14; 7 trials, 1264 children), but result in almost a third fewer children having pain at two to three days (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20; 7 trials, 2320 children; high-certainty evidence), and likely result in two-thirds fewer having pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7; 1 trial, 278 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotics increase the risk of adverse events such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14; 8 trials, 2107 children; high-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduce the risk of children having abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; NNTB 11; 7 trials, 2138 children), slightly reduce the risk of experiencing tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.89; NNTB 33; 5 trials, 1075 children) and halve the risk of contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11; 4 trials, 906 children). However, antibiotics do not reduce the risk of abnormal tympanometry findings at six to eight weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.13; 3 trials, 953 children) and at three months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; 3 trials, 809 children) or late AOM recurrences (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11; 6 trials, 2200 children). Severe complications were rare, and the evidence suggests that serious complications do not differ between children treated with either antibiotics or placebo. Immediate antibiotics versus expectant observation We included six trials (1556 children) from high-income countries. The evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may result in a reduction of pain at two to three days (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; NNTB 8; 1 trial, 396 children; low-certainty evidence), but probably do not reduce the risk of pain at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12; 4 trials, 959 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the risk of pain at 11 to 14 days (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 1 trial, 247 children; low-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics increase the risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.51; NNTH 10; 3 trials, 946 children; high-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics probably do not reduce the proportion of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks and evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may not reduce the risk of tympanic membrane perforation and AOM recurrences. No serious complications occurred in either group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review reveals that antibiotics probably have no effect on pain at 24 hours, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics, one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. For most children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified. Therefore, clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics.

What does microbiology have to do with the Hearing for Learning Initiative (HfLI)?

Where would we be without microbiology in tackling the high prevalence of otitis media (OM; middle ear infection) and disabling hearing loss that disadvantage Australian First Nations children living in remote communities? Understanding the microbiology of OM in this population has been critical in directing innovative clinical trials research and developing appropriate evidence-based practice guidelines. While these processes are critical to reducing disadvantage associated with OM and disabling hearing loss, a remaining seemingly insurmountable gap has remained, threatening progress in improving the lives of children with ear and hearing problems. That gap is created by the crisis in primary health care workforce in remote communities. Short stay health professionals and fly-in fly-out specialist services are under-resourced to manage the complex needs of the community, including prevention and treatment of otitis media and hearing loss rehabilitation. Hence the rationale for the Hearing for Learning Initiative – a workforce enhancement model to improve sustainability, cultural appropriateness, and effectiveness of evidence-based ear and hearing health care for young children in remote settings. This paper summarises the role of microbiology in the pathway to the Hearing for Learning Initiative.

The role of Indigenous Health Workers in ear health screening programs for Indigenous children: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the involvement of Indigenous Health Workers within ear health screening programs for Indigenous Peoples in Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand.

METHODS

Peer-reviewed and grey literature sources were systematically searched to identify evidence. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the scoping review extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Forty pieces of evidence were included in this review. While almost all included studies identified the critical role of Indigenous Health Workers in ear and hearing health, Indigenous leadership and involvement in research projects and service delivery varied significantly and none of the included studies reported Indigenous health worker perspectives. Approximately half of the authorship teams had at least one Indigenous author.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for Indigenous leadership in ear and hearing health research and programming. Specialist teams involved in health service delivery and research need to enable this transition by understanding and privileging Indigenous leadership and investing in appropriate training for non-Indigenous specialists providing care in Indigenous health contexts.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

These findings are discussed in terms of opportunities to improve Indigenous ear and hearing health research and programming.

INFLATE: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing nasal balloon autoinflation to no nasal balloon autoinflation for otitis media with effusion in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is common and occurs at disproportionately higher rates among Indigenous children. Left untreated, OME can negatively affect language, development, learning, and health and wellbeing throughout the life-course. Currently, OME care includes observation for 3 months followed by consideration of surgical ventilation tube insertion. The use of a non-invasive, low-cost nasal balloon autoinflation device has been found beneficial in other populations but has not been investigated among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

METHODS/DESIGN

This multi-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial will determine the effectiveness of nasal balloon autoinflation compared to no nasal balloon autoinflation, for the treatment of OME among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia. Children aged 3-16 years with unilateral or bilateral OME are being recruited from Aboriginal Health Services and the community. The primary outcome is the proportion of children showing tympanometric improvement of OME at 1 month. Improvement is defined as a change from bilateral type B tympanograms to at least one type A or C1 tympanogram, or from unilateral type B tympanogram to type A or C1 tympanogram in the index ear, without deterioration (type A or C1 to type C2, C3, or B tympanogram) in the contralateral ear. A sample size of 340 children (170 in each group) at 1 month will detect an absolute difference of 15% between groups with 80% power at 5% significance. Anticipating a 15% loss to follow-up, 400 children will be randomised. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes include tympanometric changes at 3 and 6 months, hearing at 3 months, ear health-related quality of life (OMQ-14), and cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation including perspectives of parents or carers, health care providers, and researchers on trial implementation will also be undertaken.

DISCUSSION

INFLATE will answer the important clinical question of whether nasal balloon autoinflation is an effective and acceptable treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with OME. INFLATE will help fill the evidence gap for safe, low-cost, accessible OME therapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617001652369 . Registered on 22 December 2017. The Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry is a primary registry of the WHO ICTRP network and includes all items from the WHO Trial Registration data set. Retrospective registration.

The socioemotional challenges and consequences for caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with otitis media: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Living with ear disease can have extensive impacts on physical, emotional and social well-being. This study explored otitis media (OM) and its management from the perspective of caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2015 to 2020 with caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with OM. Thematic analysis of transcripts was undertaken using a constructivist grounded theory approach through the leadership and the cultural lens of an Aboriginal community-based researcher.

RESULTS

Caregivers described OM as having profound impacts on their child's physical, developmental, and emotional well-being, with long waits for specialist treatment contributing to extra strain on families. Children's well-being suffered when OM was mistaken for poor behaviour and children were punished, with caregivers subsequently experiencing strong feelings of guilt. Concerns were conveyed about the social implications of having a sick child. The variable nature of OM symptoms meant that caregivers had to monitor closely for sequelae and advocate for appropriate treatment. Success in navigating the diagnosis and treatment of OM can be strongly impacted by the relationship between caregivers and health professionals and the perceived access to respectful, collaborative and informative healthcare.

CONCLUSION

OM may have substantial social and emotional consequences for children and their caregivers. A holistic understanding of the way in which OM impacts multiple facets of health and well-being, as well as recognition of challenges in accessing proper care and treatment, will aid families managing OM and its sequelae.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Governing boards, managers, staff and community members from five Australian Aboriginal Medical Services were involved in the approval, management and conduct of this study and the wider clinical trials. The caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients at these services informed the interview study and guided its purpose.

Randomised clinical trial research within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health services: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To better understand how to undertake valuable, ethical and sustainable randomised controlled clinical trial (RCT) research within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health services.

DESIGN

In a qualitative approach, we utilised data collected between 2013 and 2020 during the planning and implementation of two RCTs. The data comprised agreed records of research meetings, and semistructured interviews with clinical trial stakeholders. The stakeholders were parents/carers of child participants, and site-based research officers, healthcare providers and community advisory groups. Our thematic analysis was informed by constructivist grounded theory.

SETTING

The RCTs investigated the management of otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, with the first RCT commencing recruitment in 2014 and the second in 2017. They took place in Aboriginal Medical Services (AMSs), large primary health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, based in urban and regional communities across two Australian states and one territory.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 56 meetings and 67 interviews, generating themes on making research valuable and undertaking ethical and sustainable RCTs. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, and support of AMSs in their service delivery function were critical. The broad benefits of the trials were considered important to sustainability, including workforce development, enhanced ear healthcare and multidirectional research capacity building. Participants emphasised the long-term responsibility of research teams to deliver benefits to AMSs and communities regardless of RCT outcomes, and to focus on relationships, reciprocity and creating positive experiences of research.

CONCLUSION

We identify principles and strategies to assist in undertaking ethical and sustainable RCTs within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health services. Maintaining relationships with AMSs and focusing on mutual workforce development and capacity building creates opportunities for long-term benefits so that health research and RCTs work for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, services, communities and researchers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12613001068752 (Pre-results); ACTRN12617001652369 (Pre-results).

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.

Systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) 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. Systemic antibiotics are a commonly used treatment option for CSOM, which 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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of 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 comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) against placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving patients with chronic (at least two weeks) ear discharge of unknown cause or due to CSOM. Other treatments were allowed if both treatment and control arms also received it.

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

We included 18 studies (2135 participants) with unclear or high risk of bias. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge at between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 33 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. Ear pain and suspected ototoxicity were not reported. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Six studies were included of which five presented useable data. There may be little or no difference in the resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks for oral ciprofloxacin compared to placebo or no treatment when ciprofloxacin ear drops were used in both intervention arms (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence). No results after two weeks were reported. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received other background treatments) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus steroids as background treatment in both arms. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge between metronidazole and placebo at four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 40 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if resolution of ear discharge at six weeks was improved with co-trimoxazole compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 98 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ear discharge was not reported at other time points. From the narrative report there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms and found similar resolution of ear discharge between the amoxicillin and no treatment groups at three to four months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41; 136 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (both very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported. 4. Different types of systemic antibiotics This is a summary of four comparisons, where different antibiotics were compared to each other. Eight studies compared different types of systemic antibiotics against each other: quinolones against beta-lactams (four studies), lincosamides against nitroimidazoles (one study) and comparisons of different types of beta-lactams (three studies). It was not possible to conclude if there was one class or type of systemic antibiotic that was better in terms of resolution of ear discharge. The studies did not report adverse events well.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a limited amount of evidence available to examine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. When used alone (with or without aural toileting), we are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an effective intervention such as topical antibiotics, there seems to be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics and it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic may be more effective than another. Adverse effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the studies included. As we found very sparse evidence for their efficacy, the possibility of adverse events may detract from their use for CSOM.

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.

Topical 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. Topical antibiotics, the most common treatment for CSOM, 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 antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical antibiotics (without steroids) 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 1 April 2019.

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 single, or combination of, topical antibiotic agent(s) 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 compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic (e.g. topical antibiotic A versus topical antibiotic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of participants had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toileting 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; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with a total of 2198 participants. Twelve studies reported the sample size in terms of participants (not ears); these had a total of 1797 participants. The remaining five studies reported both the number of participants and ears, representing 401 participants, or 510 ears. A: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with aural toilet in both arms and no other background treatment) One small study compared a topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) with placebo (saline). All participants received aural toilet. Although ciprofloxacin was better than saline in terms of resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 84% versus 12% (risk ratio (RR) 6.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 24.99; 35 participants, very low-certainty evidence), the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other. The study authors reported that "no medical side-effects and worsening of audiological measurements related to this topical medication were detected" (very low-certainty evidence). B: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with use of oral antibiotics in both arms) Four studies compared topical ciprofloxacin to no treatment (three studies; 190 participants) or topical ceftizoxime to no treatment (one study; 248 participants). In each study all participants received the same antibiotic systemically (oral ciprofloxacin, injected ceftizoxime). In at least one study all participants received aural toilet. Useable data were only available from the first three studies; ciprofloxacin was better than no treatment, resolution of discharge occurring in 88.2% versus 60% at one to two weeks (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.80; 2 studies, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported ear pain or discomfort/local irritation. C: Comparisons of different topical antibiotics The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in these comparisons is very low. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides Seven studies compared an aminoglycoside (gentamicin, neomycin or tobramycin) with ciprofloxacin (734 participants) or ofloxacin (214 participants). Whilst resolution of discharge at one to two weeks was higher in the quinolones group the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.29; 6 studies, 694 participants). One study measured ear pain and reported no difference between the groups. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides/polymyxin B combination ±gramicidin We identified three studies but data on our primary outcome were only available in one study. Comparing ciprofloxacin to a neomycin/polymyxin B/gramicidin combination, for an unknown treatment duration (likely four weeks), ciprofloxacin was better (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, 186 participants). A "few" patients experienced local irritation upon the first instillation of topical treatment (numbers/groups not stated). Others Other studies examined topical gentamicin versus a trimethoprim/sulphacetamide/polymixin B combination (91 participants) and rifampicin versus chloramphenicol (160 participants). Limited data were available and the findings were very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics in improving resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-quality evidence available. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the use of topical antibiotics may be effective when compared to placebo, or when used in addition to a systemic antibiotic. 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.

Acute otitis media in children presenting to the emergency department: Is it diagnosed and managed appropriately?

AIM

To describe the diagnostic and management practice in children with acute otitis media (AOM) presenting to the emergency department (ED) and compare diagnosis and management against existing guidelines.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective descriptive cohort study of patients ≤15 years of age who presented to two EDs in Southeast Queensland between January 2016 and June 2017 with an ED diagnosis of AOM. Likelihood of diagnosis was based on medical records and classified as likely, possible or unlikely using paediatric practice guidelines. Appropriateness of antibiotics prescription was classified using the National Antibiotic Prescribing Survey, which takes into account adherence to the Australian Therapeutic Guidelines. Each medical record was extracted by two blinded reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus or arbitration.

RESULTS

Of the 305 patients included for analysis, 87% had a likely or possible diagnosis of AOM. Otalgia was the presenting complaint in 75%. Standard otoscopy was the routine method for tympanic membrane visualisation, and 70% had abnormal tympanic membrane findings. Almost two-thirds (62%) of all children were prescribed antibiotics. Antibiotic appropriateness could be ascertained for 286 patients (94%). A total of 39% received inappropriate antibiotic management for AOM. The majority of patients received analgesia in the form of paracetamol and/or ibuprofen.

CONCLUSIONS

ED clinicians make the diagnosis of AOM fairly accurately, although better assessment of the tympanic membrane by tympanometry and/or pneumatic otoscopy may improve accuracy. More than one-third of patients are prescribed antibiotics inappropriately. Our data can inform knowledge translation and education strategies to ensure the correct evidence-based management of this condition.

Pediatricians' attitudes in management of acute otitis media and ear pain in Turkey

OBJECTIVES

Acute otitis media (AOM) is predominantly a disease of childhood and one of the common reasons for prescribing antibiotics. Ear pain is the main symptom of AOM, with the result that parents frequently seek immediate medical assistance for their children. Antibiotic therapy for AOM does not provide symptomatic relief in the first 24 hours, and analgesics are commonly recommended for relieving the pain associated with AOM. The aims of the present study were to assess pediatricians' attitudes toward AOM and ear pain management in Turkey.

METHODS

This multicenter descriptive questionnaire study was conducted in 20 centers from different geographic locations in Turkey, with 977 pediatricians, between June 2015 and December 2016. The questionnaire comprised 20 questions focusing on the pediatricians' sociodemographic variables, experiences, and treatment related to AOM and ear pain.

RESULTS

Of the pediatricians, 58.2% were residents, 36.5% were specialists, and 4.3% were lecturers. Most participants were working in a university hospital (54.8%) or education and research hospital (32.2%). In general daily practice, the AOM diagnosis rates were between 6% and 20% in outpatient clinics, and 52.3% of the participants stated the patients complained about ear pain in pediatric clinics. The watchful waiting (WW) rate, as opposed to immediate antibiotic treatment, was 39.8% for all the pediatricians. The pediatric residents used the WW strategy less than the specialists and lecturers did (p = 0.004). The rates of the WW strategy were higher in outpatient clinics where AOM was commonly diagnosed (p < 0.001). The most common antibiotic prescribed for AOM was amoxicillin clavulanate (76.7%). The mean recommended treatment period for AOM was 9.3 ± 2.2 days. The choices for systemic ear pain treatment were acetaminophen (26.8%), ibuprofen (29.4%), and alternating between ibuprofen and acetaminophen (43.9%). Moreover, 34.6% of the participants recommended topical agents for otalgia. Topical agents were more commonly recommended by the pediatric residents than specialists or lecturers (p < 0.001). Finally, 58.3% of pediatricians had experiences of the parents' usage of a variety of herbal and folk remedies, such as breast milk or olive oil, for their children's ear pain.

CONCLUSION

Amoxicillin clavulanate was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic for AOM. WW was approved by the pediatricians, and having more AOM patients was a significant factor in the physicians' choice of WW; nevertheless, the WW rate was poor. Implementation of educational intervention strategies will help pediatricians in improving their compliance with evidence-based guidelines for AOM treatment. Otalgia is taken seriously by parents and pediatricians, and otalgia treatment seems to be well accepted in Turkey for providing symptomatic relief and enhancing the patients' quality of life.

An innovative approach to improve ear, nose and throat surgical access for remote living Cape York Indigenous children

INTRODUCTION

On a background of high rates of severe otitis media (OM) with associated hearing loss, children from the Torres Strait and Cape York region requiring ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery, faced waiting times exceeding three years. After numerous clinical safety incidents were raised, indicating a failure of the current system to deliver appropriate care, the governing Hospital and Health service opted to deliver surgical care through an alternate process. ENT surgeries were performed on 16 consented children from two remote locations via the private health care system, funded by a health provider partnership.

METHODS

We examined the collaboration processes alongside clinical findings from this ENT surgery. Collated patient data, included patient demographics, clinical and audiometry presentation features were reviewed and compared pre and post-operatively. Cost savings associated with the use of TeleHealth post-operatively were briefly examined.

RESULTS

Surgeries were successfully completed in all 16 children. The reported mean waitlist time for ENT surgery was 1.2 years. Pre-surgery pure-tone average hearing thresholds were reported at left: 30.9 dB, right: 38.2 dB. The majority of presentations were for bilateral OM with Effusion (69%). Post-surgical follow up indicated successful clinical outcomes in 80% of patients and successful hearing outcomes in 88% of patients. Mean difference pure-tone average hearing thresholds, left: 8.4 dB and right: 11.2 dB. Furthermore, the majority of patients reported improved hearing and breathing. The use of TeleHealth for post-operative review enabled a minimum cost saving of AUD$21,664 for these 16 children. Overall, a high level of staffing resources was required to successfully coordinate this intense surgical activity.

CONCLUSION

This innovative approach to a health system crisis enabled successful ENT surgical and hearing outcomes in 16 children, whose waitlisted time grossly exceeded state health recommendations. Using private health facilities funded by a health partnership, while unlikely to be a suitable model of care for routine service delivery; may be applied as an adjunct service model when blockages and delays lead to sub-standard service provision. This approach may be applicable to other health care facilities when facing extended elective surgery wait times in ENT or other specialty areas.