Variation in bacterial count in otorrhea from cases of chronic otitis media depending upon the method of antibiotic administration

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Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a serious bacterial infection of the middle ear that can follow untreated acute otitis media.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different treatments for CSOM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline from 1966 to 1996 and a bibliographic collection of the Hearing Impairment Research Group in Liverpool, UK. We handsearched two otolaryngology journals and contacted members of an international hearing network.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of any method of management for patients with eardrum perforation and persistent otorrhea.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently assessed eligibility and trial quality. One reviewer extracted data. We contacted investigators for clarifications.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four trials involving 1660 people were included. Clinical definitions and severity of CSOM varied, methodological quality was generally low and follow-up was short. Treatment with antibiotics or antiseptics accompanied by aural toilet was more effective in resolving otorrhea than no treatment (two trials, odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0. 57) or aural toilet alone (six trials, odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.43). Topical treatment with antibiotics or antiseptics was more effective than systemic antibiotics (six trials, odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.69). Combining topical and systemic antibiotics was not more effective than topical antibiotics. Topical quinolones were more effective than non-quinolones (five trials, odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.41). No difference in the effectiveness of topical antibiotics and topical antiseptics was found (three studies, odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 2.81). Some topical antibiotic combinations may be more effective than others in resolving otorrhea. Rates of adverse drug events were low and equal between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of CSOM with aural toilet and topical antibiotics, particularly quinolones, is effective in resolving otorrhea and eradicating bacteria from the middle ear. Longterm outcomes such as preventing recurrences, closure of tympanic perforation and hearing improvement need to be further evaluated.

Systemic antibiotics versus topical treatments for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) causes ear discharge and impairs hearing.

OBJECTIVES

To compare systemic antibiotics and topical antiseptics or antibiotics (excluding steroids) for treating chronically discharging ears with an underlying eardrum perforation (CSOM).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane ENT Disorders Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1951 to March 2005), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2005), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2005), AMED (1985 to March 2005), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2005), OLDMEDLINE (January 1958 to December 1965) PREMEDLINE, Metadatabase of registers of ongoing trials (mRCT), and article references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials; any systemic versus topical treatment (excluding steroids); participants with CSOM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author assessed eligibility and quality, extracted data, entered data into RevMan; two authors provided a second assessment of titles and abstracts, and inputted where there was ambiguity. We contacted investigators for clarifications.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials (833 randomised participants; 842 analysed participants or ears). CSOM definitions and severity varied; some included mastoid cavity infections, other diagnoses, or complications. Methodological quality varied; generally poorly reported, follow-up short, handling of bilateral disease inconsistent. Topical quinolone antibiotics were better than systemic antibiotics at clearing discharge at 1-2 weeks: relative risks (RR) were, 3.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 5.49) using systemic non-quinolone antibiotics (2 trials, N = 116), and 3.18 (1.87 to 5.43) using systemic quinolone (3 trials, N = 175); or 2.75 (1.38 to 5.46) in favour of systemic plus topical quinolone over systemic quinolone alone (2 trials, N = 90). No statistically significant benefit was seen at 2-4 weeks for topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or topical antiseptic over systemic antibiotics (mostly non-quinolones), but numbers were small: one trial tested topical non-quinolones (N = 31); two tested antiseptics (N = 152). No benefit of adding systemic to topical treatment at 1-2 weeks was detected either, although evidence was limited (three trials, N = 204). Evidence regarding safety was generally weak. Adverse events reported were generally mild, although hearing worsened by ototoxicity (damaging auditory hair cells) was seen with chloramphenicol drops (non-quinolone antibiotic).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical quinolone antibiotics can clear aural discharge better than systemic antibiotics; topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or antiseptic results are less clear. Evidence regarding safety was weak. Further studies should clarify topical non-quinolones and antiseptic effectiveness, assess longer-term outcomes (for resolution, healing, hearing, or complications), and include further safety assessments, particularly to clarify the risks of ototoxicity and whether there may be fewer adverse events with topical quinolones than other topical or systemic treatments.

Topical antibiotics without steroids for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) causes ear discharge and impairs hearing.

OBJECTIVES

Assess topical antibiotics (excluding steroids) for treating chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations (CSOM).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1951 to March 2005), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2005), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2005), AMED (1985 to March 2005), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2005), OLDMEDLINE (January 1958 to December 1965), PREMEDLINE, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and article references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials; any topical antibiotic without steroids, versus no drug treatment, aural toilet, topical antiseptics, or other topical antibiotics excluding steroids; participants with CSOM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author assessed eligibility and quality, extracted data, entered data onto RevMan; two authors inputted where there was ambiguity. We contacted investigators for clarifications.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials (1,724 analysed participants or ears). CSOM definitions and severity varied; some included otitis externa, mastoid cavity infections and other diagnoses. Methodological quality varied; generally poorly reported, follow-up usually short, handling of bilateral disease inconsistent. Topical quinolone antibiotics were better than no drug treatment at clearing discharge at one week: relative risk (RR) was 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.59) (two trials, N = 197). No statistically significant difference was found between quinolone and non-quinolone antibiotics (without steroids) at weeks one or three: pooled RR were 0.89 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.32) (three trials, N = 402), and 0.97 (0.54 to 1.72) (two trials, N = 77), respectively. A positive trend in favour of quinolones seen at two weeks was largely due to one trial and not significant after accounting for heterogeneity: pooled RR 0.65 (0.46 to 0.92) (four trials, N = 276) using the fixed-effect model, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.17) accounting for heterogeneity with the random-effects model. Topical quinolones were significantly better at curing CSOM than antiseptics: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67) at one week (three trials, N = 263), and 0.58 (0.47 to 0.72) at two to four weeks (four trials, N = 519). Meanwhile, non-quinolone antibiotics (without steroids) compared to antiseptics were more mixed, changing over time (four trials, N = 254). Evidence regarding safety was generally weak.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical quinolone antibiotics can clear aural discharge better than no drug treatment or topical antiseptics; non-quinolone antibiotic effects (without steroids) versus no drug or antiseptics are less clear. Studies were also inconclusive regarding any differences between quinolone and non-quinolone antibiotics, although indirect comparisons suggest a benefit of topical quinolones cannot be ruled out. Further trials should clarify non-quinolone antibiotic effects, assess longer-term outcomes (for resolution, healing, hearing, or complications) and include further safety assessments, particularly to clarify the risks of ototoxicity and whether quinolones may result in fewer adverse events than other topical treatments.

Randomised controlled trial of treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media in Kenyan schoolchildren

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) are disappointing and uncertain, especially in developing countries. Because CSOM is the commonest cause of hearing impairment in children in these countries, an effective method of management that can be implemented on a wide scale is needed. We report a randomised, controlled trial of treatment of CSOM among children in Kenya; unaffected schoolchildren were taught to administer the interventions.

METHODS

We enrolled 524 children with CSOM, aged 5-15 years, from 145 primary schools in Kiambu district of Kenya. The schools were randomly assigned treatments in clusters of five in a ratio of two to dry mopping alone (201 children), two to dry mopping with topical and systemic antibiotics and topical steroids (221 children), and one to no specific treatment (102 children). Schools were matched on factors thought to be related to their socioeconomic status. The primary outcome measures were resolution of otorrhoea and healing of tympanic membranes on otoscopy by 8, 12, and 16 weeks after induction. Absence of perforation was confirmed by tympanometry, and hearing levels were assessed by audiometry. 29 children were withdrawn from the trial because they took non-trial antibiotics. There was no evidence of differences in timing of withdrawals between the groups.

FINDINGS

By the 16-week follow-up visit, otorrhoea had resolved in a weighted mean proportion of 51% (95% CI 42-59) of children who received dry mopping with antibiotics, compared with 22% (14-31) of those who received dry mopping alone and 22% (9-35) of controls. Similar differences were recorded by the 8-week and 12-week visits. The weighted mean proportions of children with healing of the tympanic membranes by 16 weeks were 15% (10-21) in the dry-mopping plus antibiotics group, 13% (5-20) in the dry-mopping alone group, and 13% (3-23) in the control group. The proportion with resolution in the dry-mopping alone group did not differ significantly from that in the control group at any time. Hearing thresholds were significantly better for children with no otorrhoea at 16 weeks than for those who had otorrhoea, and were also significantly better for those whose ears had healed than for those with otorrhoea at all times.

INTERPRETATION

Our finding that dry mopping plus topical and systemic antibiotics is superior to dry mopping alone contrasts with that of the only previous community-based trial in a developing country, though it accords with findings of most other trials in developed countries. The potential role of antibiotics needs further investigation. Further, similar trials are needed to identify the most cost-effective and appropriate treatment regimen for CSOM in children in developing countries.

Therapeutic management of chronic suppurative otitis media with otic drops

The use of potentially ototoxic topical drugs is controversial. Few experimental reports of audiometric data from human subjects exist. The purpose of this study is to determine if a significant difference between bone conduction hearing sensitivity before and after otic drop treatment for children with chronic suppurative otitis media and patent ventilation tubes exists. A statistical analysis of sensorineural threshold status after treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media with otic drops is presented.

Respiratory viruses and Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections at the time of the acute exacerbation of chronic otitis media

The present study was undertaken to ascertain whether or not patients with chronic otitis media are infected with viruses or Mycoplasma at the time of sudden increase in otorrhea. From 26 patients with acute exacerbation of chronic otitis media, sera were collected at the time of sudden increase in otorrhea and three to four weeks later. These paired sera were examined for antibody titer to respiratory viruses (21 species) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Of them, influenza B virus and RSV infections were demonstrated in four and two cases, respectively. Examinations showed no infection in 10 control cases without acute exacerbation. In 36 cases of acute exacerbation of chronic otitis media, attempts were made to isolate viruses and Mycoplasma pneumoniae from the pharynx and otorrhea. Consequently, influenza B virus was detected in pharyngeal mucous scrapings in two cases and RSV in one. The probability of respiratory virus infection leading to acute exacerbation of chronic otitis media appears to be lower than that provoking acute otitis media in children and infants. However, the present data suggest that the development of respiratory virus infection in patients with chronic otitis media may cause an increase in the otorrhea, eventually resulting in an acute exacerbation of inflammation.