Evidence review and ENT-UK consensus report for the use of aminoglycoside-containing ear drops in the presence of an open middle ear

Ototoxicity of Topical Antibiotic Ear Drops in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media in Humans: A Review of the Literature

An electronic search of the literature was performed for reported cases of ototoxicity associated with the use of topical antibiotic ear drops in humans. The dosage, duration, and type of ototoxic preparations involved were recorded. Due to the scant quantity of low-quality information that is currently available, there was uncertainty about the usefulness of topical antibiotics in enhancing the resolution of ear discharge in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media. However, despite this uncertainty, there are some data to show that using topical antibiotics in comparison to a placebo or in conjunction with a systemic antibiotic may be useful. Additionally, there is ambiguity regarding the relative efficacy of various kinds of antibiotics; it is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether quinolones are superior to or inferior to aminoglycosides. Although the adverse impact profiles of these two classes of chemicals varied, there are not enough data from the included trials to draw any conclusions about them. Negative effects were generally underreported.

Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacterial Aetiologies of Childhood Otitis Media in Accra, Ghana

Background:

Otitis media (OM), also known as middle ear infection, is a clinically significant childhood disease. In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a paucity of contemporary reports on it is bacterial aetiologies and antimicrobial resistance among them.

Aim:

To investigate the OM bacterial aetiologies and their antimicrobial resistance patterns among children visiting the Ear, Nose, and Throat clinics of 3 healthcare facilities in Accra, Ghana – Princess Marie Louise Children’s Hospital, 37 Military Hospital, and Mamprobi Hospital.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study involved 100 children below 13 years old with suppurative otitis media. Following standard bacteriological methods, sterile ear swabs were used to take middle ear discharges from the study participants for culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. A standard questionnaire was also used to collect data on socio-demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

The major OM bacterial aetiologies were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (38.5%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.8%), Proteus mirabilis (11.5%), and Staphylococcus aureus (10.4%). The majority of the bacteria demonstrated low to moderate resistance (0%-33.3%) to most of the antibiotics. Eight of the bacteria (4 each of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli) were extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers; 6 ampicillinase (Amp C)-producing organisms (4 Citrobacter spp. and one each of Morganella morganii and Serratia marcescens) were also identified, and they showed high antibiotic resistance.

Conclusions:

The predominant OM aetiologies were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, and Staphylococcus aureus, and they were generally susceptible to most of the antibiotics tested. Amikacin, cefepime, ciprofloxacin, and meropenem could be valuable in the empirical management of childhood OM.

Immediate oral versus immediate topical versus delayed oral antibiotics for children with acute otitis media with discharge: the REST three-arm non-inferiority electronic platform-supported RCT

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media is a painful infection of the middle ear that is commonly seen in children. In some children, the eardrum spontaneously bursts, discharging visible pus (otorrhoea) into the outer ear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of immediate topical antibiotics or delayed oral antibiotics with the clinical effectiveness of immediate oral antibiotics in reducing symptom duration in children presenting to primary care with acute otitis media with discharge and the economic impact of the alternative strategies.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, three-arm, individually randomised (stratified by age < 2 vs. ≥ 2 years), non-inferiority, open-label trial, with economic and qualitative evaluations, supported by a health-record-integrated electronic trial platform [TRANSFoRm (Translational Research and Patient Safety in Europe)] with an internal pilot.

SETTING

A total of 44 English general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged ≥ 12 months and < 16 years whose parents (or carers) were seeking medical care for unilateral otorrhoea (ear discharge) following recent-onset (≤ 7 days) acute otitis media.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) Immediate ciprofloxacin (0.3%) solution, four drops given three times daily for 7 days, or (2) delayed 'dose-by-age' amoxicillin suspension given three times daily (clarithromycin twice daily if the child was penicillin allergic) for 7 days, with structured delaying advice. All parents were given standardised information regarding symptom management (paracetamol/ibuprofen/fluids) and advice to complete the course.

COMPARATOR

Immediate 'dose-by-age' oral amoxicillin given three times daily (or clarithromycin given twice daily) for 7 days. Parents received standardised symptom management advice along with advice to complete the course.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time from randomisation to the first day on which all symptoms (pain, fever, being unwell, sleep disturbance, otorrhoea and episodes of distress/crying) were rated 'no' or 'very slight' problem (without need for analgesia).

METHODS

Participants were recruited from routine primary care appointments. The planned sample size was 399 children. Follow-up used parent-completed validated symptom diaries.

RESULTS

Delays in software deployment and configuration led to small recruitment numbers and trial closure at the end of the internal pilot. Twenty-two children (median age 5 years; 62% boys) were randomised: five, seven and 10 to immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotics, respectively. All children received prescriptions as randomised. Seven (32%) children fully adhered to the treatment as allocated. Symptom duration data were available for 17 (77%) children. The median (interquartile range) number of days until symptom resolution in the immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotic arms was 6 (4-9), 4 (3-7) and 4 (3-6), respectively. Comparative analyses were not conducted because of small numbers. There were no serious adverse events and six reports of new or worsening symptoms. Qualitative clinician interviews showed that the trial question was important. When the platform functioned as intended, it was liked. However, staff reported malfunctioning software for long periods, resulting in missed recruitment opportunities. Troubleshooting the software placed significant burdens on staff.

LIMITATIONS

The over-riding weakness was the failure to recruit enough children.

CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to answer the main research question because of a failure to reach the required sample size. Our experience of running an electronic platform-supported trial in primary care has highlighted challenges from which we have drawn recommendations for the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the research community. These should be considered before such a platform is used again.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12873692 and EudraCT 2017-003635-10.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Systematic Review of Antibiotic Prescription for Acute Otitis Externa

BACKGROUND

There is a perception among ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgeons that oral antibiotics are over-prescribed for acute otitis externa (AOE), and the potential for topical therapy as first-line treatment is not fully realized in primary care. We evaluated the prescription rate of topical and oral antibiotics for AOE in primary care and in patients referred to the ENT emergency clinic.

METHODS

 A systematic review was performed by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases between January 1990 and October 2020. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. The outcome measures were the rate of topical and oral antibiotic prescriptions for AOE by primary care practitioners and the rate of oral antibiotic prescriptions that were not indicated.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The rate of topical antibiotic prescriptions was between 77% and 95%, and oral antibiotics varied between 6% and 30% in patients that were managed only in primary care. Patients that were referred to an ENT emergency clinic had initially been treated by primary care practitioners with topical antibiotics in 14%-60% of cases and oral antibiotics in 16%-17%. The most commonly prescribed oral antibiotics were Amoxicillin and Co-amoxiclav (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid). No study had comprehensively reviewed the indication for oral antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

The rate of topical antibiotic prescriptions for AOE was high in primary care; however, the rate was frequently suboptimal in patients attending the ENT emergency clinic. Although the rate of oral antibiotic prescriptions was relatively low, the choice of antibiotic for empirical treatment frequently did not cover the typical bacteria in AOE. There is a need for improvement in primary care prescribing of topical therapy prior to referral to the ENT emergency clinic.

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.

Drug-Induced Ototoxicity: A Comprehensive Review and Reference Guide

OBJECTIVE

In an era of increasing polypharmacy, adverse drug effects such as ototoxicity have significant public health implications. Despite the availability of evidence, many health care professionals may not know the risk of ototoxicity in common medications. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive, easy to use, ototoxic profile of medications with an assessment of supporting evidence.

METHODS

Medications of interest were identified through adverse drug reaction reports derived from Micromedex (IBM), Lexicomp (Wolters Kluwer), and the textbook, Drug Induced Diseases: Prevention, Detection, and Management. Additional evidence was identified though a query of PubMed and the Cochrane database. Evidence of causality was graded according to the following: A (randomized, controlled clinical trials), B (nonrandomized clinical trials, prospective observational studies, cohort studies, retrospective studies, case-controlled studies, and/or postmarketing surveillance studies), and C (case reports/case series).

RESULTS

A total of 194 systemically administered medications associated with ototoxicity were identified, most commonly antimicrobials (53), psychotropics (21), antihypertensive/antiarrhythmics (19), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (18), and antineoplastics (16). There was evidence of cochleotoxicity in 165 medications (evidence grading A [22], B [77], C [69]), vestibulotoxicity in 100 medications (evidence grading A [23], B [47], and C [30]), and dizziness in 142 medications (evidence grading A [50], B [76], and C [16]). In addition, a review of the evidence of ototoxicity in ototopical medications is also reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The effect and severity of ototoxicity can vary immensely depending on pharmacological and individual patient risk factors. The intent of this comprehensive review was to help health care providers of all sectors obtain a deeper knowledge of drug-induced ototoxicity to make more informed management decisions for their patients.

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.

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.

Effects of an enrofloxacin-silver sulfadiazine emulsion in the ears of rabbits with perforated tympanic membranes

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether an enrofloxacin-silver sulfadiazine emulsion (ESS) labeled for treatment of otitis externa in dogs has ototoxic effects in rabbits following myringotomy.

ANIMALS

6 healthy adult New Zealand White rabbits.

PROCEDURES

Rabbits were anesthetized for brainstem auditory-evoked response (BAER) tests on day 0. Myringotomy was performed, and BAER testing was repeated. Saline (0.9% NaCl) solution and ESS were then instilled in the left and right middle ears, respectively, and BAER testing was repeated prior to recovery of rabbits from anesthesia. Application of assigned treatments was continued every 12 hours for 7 days, and rabbits were anesthetized for BAER testing on day 8. Rabbits were euthanized, and samples were collected for histologic (6 ears/treatment) and scanning electron microscopic (1 ear/treatment) examination.

RESULTS

Most hearing thresholds (11/12 ears) were subjectively increased after myringotomy, with BAER measurements ranging from 30 to 85 dB in both ears. All day 8 hearing thresholds exceeded baseline (premyringotomy) values; results ranged from 30 to 85 dB and 80 to > 95 dB (the upper test limit) in saline solution-treated and ESS-treated ears, respectively. All ESS-treated ears had heterophilic otitis externa, epithelial hyperplasia of the external ear canal, various degrees of mucoperiosteal edema, and periosteal new bone formation on histologic examination. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that most outer hair cells in the ESS-treated ear lacked stereocilia or were absent.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results supported that ESS has ototoxic effects in the middle ear of rabbits. Further research is needed to confirm these findings. Myringotomized laboratory rabbits may be useful to study ototoxicity of drugs used in human medicine.

Microbiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of otitis externa: a changing pattern of antimicrobial resistance

OBJECTIVE

Otitis externa is a common presentation to secondary care otolaryngology clinics. Despite this, few studies have investigated the microbiology and antimicrobial resistance of otitis externa. This study aimed to examine these issues.

METHODS

Analysis identified 302 swabs taken from 217 patients (100 male, 117 female), between 1 January 2015 and 30 March 2016, at our rapid access otolaryngology clinic.

RESULTS

In total, 315 organisms were isolated; the most frequent was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (31.1 per cent), followed by candida species (22.9 per cent) and Staphylococcus aureus (11.7 per cent). P aeruginosa was sensitive to ciprofloxacin in 97.7 per cent of cases and to gentamicin in 78.4 per cent.

CONCLUSION

Compared with studies worldwide, the relative proportions of different organisms causing otitis externa and the patterns of antimicrobial resistance differ. Increasing resistance of P aeruginosa to aminoglycosides demonstrates a changing pattern of antimicrobial resistance that has not been previously reported. Reassuringly, quinolone antibiotics remain highly effective when treating P aeruginosa.

Interventions for children with ear discharge occurring at least two weeks following grommet (ventilation tube) insertion

BACKGROUND

Ear discharge (otorrhoea) is common in children with grommets (ventilation/tympanostomy tubes); the proportion of children developing discharge ranges from 25% to 75%. The most common treatment strategies include oral broad-spectrum antibiotics, antibiotic eardrops or those containing a combination of antibiotic(s) and a corticosteroid, and initial observation. Important drivers for one strategy over the other are concerns over the side effects of oral antibiotics and the potential ototoxicity of antibiotic eardrops.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of current treatment strategies for children with ear discharge occurring at least two weeks following grommet (ventilation tube) insertion.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register, CENTRAL (2016, Issue 5), multiple databases and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 June 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing at least two of the following: oral antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid), corticosteroid eardrops, microsuction cleaning of the ear canal, saline rinsing of the ear canal, placebo or no treatment. The main comparison of interest was antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid) versus oral antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were: proportion of children with resolution of ear discharge at short-term follow-up (less than two weeks), adverse events and serious complications. Secondary outcomes were: proportion of children with resolution of ear discharge at intermediate- (two to four weeks) and long-term (four to 12 weeks) follow-up, proportion of children with resolution of ear pain and fever at short-term follow-up, duration of ear discharge, proportion of children with chronic ear discharge, ear discharge recurrences, tube blockage, tube extrusion, health-related quality of life and hearing. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies, evaluating a range of treatments, with 2132 children who developed acute ear discharge beyond the immediate postoperative period. We judged the risk of bias to be low to moderate in most studies. Antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid) versus oral antibioticsAntibiotic eardrops with or without corticosteroid were more effective than oral antibiotics in terms of:- resolution of discharge at one week (one study, 42 children, ciprofloxacin eardrops versus amoxicillin: 77% versus 30%; risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 5.22; moderate-quality evidence);- resolution of discharge at two weeks (one study, 153 children, bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: 95% versus 56%; RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.08; moderate-quality evidence);- duration of discharge (two studies, 233 children, ciprofloxacin eardrops versus amoxicillin: median 4 days versus 7 days and bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: 4 days versus 5 days; moderate-quality evidence);- ear discharge recurrences (one study, 148 children, bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: 0 versus 1 episode at six months; low-quality evidence); and- disease-specific quality of life (one study, 153 children, bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: difference in change in median Otitis Media-6 total score (range 6 to 42) at two weeks: -2; low-quality evidence).We found no evidence that antibiotic eardrops were more effective in terms of the proportion of children developing chronic ear discharge or tube blockage, generic quality of life or hearing.Adverse events occurred at similar rates in children treated with antibiotic eardrops and those treated with oral antibiotics, while no serious complications occurred in either of the groups. Other comparisons(a) Antibiotic eardrops with or without corticosteroid were more effective thancorticosteroid eardrops in terms of:- duration of ear discharge (one study, 331 children, ciprofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin-fluocinolone acetonide versus fluocinolone acetonide eardrops: median 5 days versus 7 days versus 22 days; moderate-quality evidence).(b) Antibiotic eardrops were more effective than saline rinsing of the ear canal in terms of:- resolution of ear discharge at one week (one study, 48 children, ciprofloxacin eardrops versus saline rinsing: 77% versus 46%; RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.69; moderate-quality evidence);but not in terms of tube blockage. Since the lower limit of the 95% CI for the effect size for resolution of ear discharge at one week approaches unity, a trivial or clinically irrelevant difference cannot be excluded.(c) Eardrops containing two antibiotics and a corticosteroid (bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone) were more effective than no treatment in terms of:- resolution of discharge at two weeks (one study; 151 children: 95% versus 45%; RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.69; moderate-quality evidence);- duration of discharge (one study; 147 children, median 4 days versus 12 days; moderate-quality evidence);- chronic discharge (one study; 147 children; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; low-quality evidence); and- disease-specific quality of life (one study, 153 children, difference in change in median Otitis Media-6 total score (range 6 to 42) between groups at two weeks: -1.5; low-quality evidence).We found no evidence that antibiotic eardrops were more effective in terms of ear discharge recurrences or generic quality of life.(d) Eardrops containing a combination of an antibiotic and a corticosteroid were more effective than eardrops containing antibiotics (low-quality evidence) in terms of:- resolution of ear discharge at short-term follow-up (two studies, 590 children: 35% versus 20%; RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.31); and- duration of discharge (three studies, 813 children);but not in terms of resolution of discharge at intermediate-term follow-up or proportion of children with tube blockage. However, there is a substantial risk of publication bias, therefore these findings should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to low-quality evidence that antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid) are more effective than oral antibiotics, corticosteroid eardrops and no treatment in children with ear discharge occurring at least two weeks following grommet insertion. There is some limited, inconclusive evidence that antibiotic eardrops are more effective than saline rinsing. There is uncertainty whether antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops are more effective than eardrops containing antibiotics only.

Sodium Selenite Acts as an Otoprotectant against Neomycin-Induced Hair Cell Damage in a Zebrafish Model

Sodium selenite is a trace element essential for many physiological functions in the body. It is involved in various biological processes; it acts as a cofactor for antioxidant enzymes that protect against free radicals and is reported to limit metal-mediated oxidative DNA damage. In the present study, we investigated the effect of sodium selenite on neomycin ototoxicity in wild-type and transgenic zebrafish (Brn3C: EGFP). Five or six days post-fertilization, zebrafish larvae were co-exposed to 125 μM neomycin and various concentrations (10 μM, 100 μM, 250 μM, and 500 μM) of sodium selenite for 1 h. Hair cells within neuromasts of the supraorbital (SO1 and SO2), otic (O1), and occipital (OC1) lateral lines were analyzed by fluorescence microscopy (n = 10 fish per treatment). Hair cell survival was estimated as the ratio of the hair cell numbers in each group compared to those of the control group that were not exposed to neomycin. Apoptosis and hair cell damage of neuromasts were evaluated using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT)-mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay and 2-[4-(dimethylamino) styryl]-N-ethylpyridinium iodide (DASPEI) assay, respectively. Ultrastructural changes were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. Neuromast hair cells were preserved in zebrafish exposed to 125 μM neomycin and 500 μM sodium selenite for 1 h. Sodium selenite protected against neomycin-induced hair cell loss of neuromasts, reduced apoptosis, and prevented zebrafish ultrastructural changes. We propose that sodium selenite protects against neomycin-induced hair cell damage by inhibiting apoptosis, decreasing the disarray of stereocilia, and preventing ultrastructural changes in the neuromast hair cells of the zebrafish.

Why are ototopical aminoglycosides still first-line therapy for chronic suppurative otitis media? A systematic review and discussion of aminoglycosides versus quinolones

Objective:

This systematic review aimed to establish that quinolones are as effective as aminoglycosides when used to treat chronic suppurative otitis media.

Method:

The review included good quality, randomised, controlled trials on human subjects, published in English, that compared topical aminoglycosides with topical quinolones for the treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media.

Results:

Nine trials met the criteria. Two studies showed a higher clinical cure rate in the quinolone group (93 per centvs71 per cent,p= 0.04, and 76 per centvs52 per cent,p= 0.009). Four studies showed no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome. A significant difference in microbiological clearance in favour of quinolones was shown in two studies (88 per centvs30 per cent,p< 0.001, and 88 per centvs30 per cent,p< 0.001).

Conclusion:

Topical quinolones do not carry the same risk of ototoxicity as aminoglycosides. Furthermore, they are equal or more effective in treating chronic suppurative otitis media and when used as prophylaxis post-myringotomy. Topical quinolones should be considered a first-line treatment for these patients.

Chronic otitis media

Chronic otitis media (COM) is a common problem facing general practitioners, pediatricians and otolaryngologists. This article reviews the aetiopathogenesis, epidemiology, presentation, natural history, complications and management of COM. The literature was reviewed by using the PubMed search engine and entering a combination of terms including "COM", "diagnosis", "incidence", "complications" and "management". Relevant articles were identified and examined for content. What is the "take-home" message for the clinician? COM is a common problem with various sub-categories according to the disease state. It most commonly presents with painless otorrhoea and hearing loss. Treatment options vary according to the activity and type of disease encountered. COM carries significant patient morbidity.

Aetiological agents of ear discharge: a two year review in a teaching hospital in Ghana

BACKGROUND

The discharging ear is a common presentation in medical practice affecting all age groups but primarily children. This study shows the current aetiological causes of ear discharge and their antibiograms, data which would guide empirical treatment of ear infections, and also form a basis for further research.

METHODOLOGY

This was a retrospective review of laboratory records of all ear swabs submitted for culture over a two year period in the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital Accra, Ghana. Data was obtained on demographic characteristics of patients, clinical diagnosis, isolated organisms and antibiotic susceptibility patterns of the isolated organisms. Data was analyzed by simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 351 ear swabs were received by the laboratory for processing over the two year period. Of these 277(78.9%) had microorganisms isolated. A significant number127 (47%) was obtained from children under five years. Pseudomonas spp was the commonly isolated organism 121(46%) followed by Staphylococcus aureus 33(12.5%) and Proteus spp 32(12.2%). Candida was the commonest isolated fungi 9 (69.2%). Susceptibility of Pseudomonas spp to commonly used ototopics (ciprofloxacin & gentamicin) was 93% and 74% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cases of the discharging ear were found in children under the age of five years. The most common bacteriologic cause of the discharging ear was Pseudomonas spp followed by Staphylococcus aureus. Candida species was the commonest fungal cause of ear discharge. Ciprofloxacin and gentamicin are effective ototopic antimicrobial agents for empirical treatment of the discharging ear.

Update on otitis media - prevention and treatment

Acute otitis media and otitis media with effusion are common childhood disorders, a source of significant morbidity, and a leading cause of antibiotic prescription in primary health care. Although effective treatments are available, some shortcomings remain, and thus better treatments would be welcome. Recent discoveries within the field of otitis media research relating to its etiology and pathogenesis have led to further investigation aimed at developing novel treatments. This article provides a review of the latest evidence relating to the understanding of acute otitis media and otitis media with effusion, current treatment strategies, their limitations, new areas of research, and novel strategies for treatment.

Interventions for the prevention of postoperative ear discharge after insertion of ventilation tubes (grommets) in children

BACKGROUND

Grommets are frequently inserted in children's ears for acute otitis media and otitis media with effusion. A common complication is postoperative ear discharge (otorrhoea). A wide range of treatments are used to prevent the discharge, but there is no consensus on whether or not intervention is necessary nor which is the most effective intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic interventions, both topical and systemic, in reducing the incidence of otorrhoea following the surgical insertion of grommets in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 3 July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of prophylactic interventions against placebo/control and/or with other prophylactic interventions for postoperative otorrhoea in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. The outcome data were dichotomous for all the included trials. We calculated individual and pooled risk ratios (RR) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. We also calculated the numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 15 eligible RCTs (2476 children, aged from four months to 17 years). We graded seven RCTs as being at a low risk of bias (n = 926 children) and for an eighth RCT we also graded two of the arms as being at a low risk of bias. We graded the other seven trials as being at a high risk of bias.For a single application at surgery, there was evidence from two low risk of bias trials that at two weeks postoperatively the risk of otorrhoea was reduced by multiple saline washouts (from 30% to 16%; RR 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 1.00; NNTB 7; one RCT; 140 children) and antibiotic/steroid ear drops (from 9% to 1%; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.57; NNTB 13; one RCT; 322 ears). A meta-analysis of two low risk of bias trials (222 ears) failed to find an effect of a single application of antibiotic/steroid ear drops at four to six weeks postoperatively.For a prolonged application of an intervention, there was evidence from four low risk of bias trials that the risk of otorrhoea was reduced two weeks postoperatively by antibiotic ear drops (from 15% to 8%; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97; NNTB 15; one RCT; 372 children), antibiotic/steroid ear drops (from 39% to 5%; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 3; one RCT; 200 children), aminoglycoside/steroid ear drops (from 15% to 5%; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.74; NNTB 11; one RCT; 356 children) or oral antibacterial agents/steroids (from 39% to 5%; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.51; NNTB 3; one RCT; 77 children).Only one trial assessed the secondary outcome of ototoxicity, but no effect was found. There were no trials that assessed quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review found that each of the following were effective at reducing the rate of otorrhoea up to two weeks following surgery: (1) multiple saline washouts at surgery, (2) a single application of topical antibiotic/steroid drops at surgery, (3) a prolonged application of topical drops (namely antibiotic ear drops, antibiotic/steroid eardrops or aminoglycoside/steroid ear drops) and (4) a prolonged application of oral antibacterial agents/steroids. However, the rate of otorrhoea between RCTs varied greatly and the higher the rates of otorrhoea within a RCT, the smaller the NNTB for therapy.We conclude that if a surgeon has a high rate of postoperative otorrhoea in children then either saline irrigation or antibiotic ear drops at the time of surgery would significantly reduce that rate. If topical drops are chosen, it is suggested that to reduce the cost and potential for ototoxic damage this be a single application at the time of surgery and not prolonged thereafter.

Sensorineural Hearing Loss Associated with Neomycin Eardrops and Nonintact Tympanic Membranes

Objective

Use of neomycin eardrops in nonintact tympanic membranes (NITMs) due to tympanic membrane (TM) perforation or tympanostomy tubes (TTs) is controversial because of the potential for ototoxicity. We sought to compare the risk of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in patients with NITMs who received neomycin with those who received fluoroquinolone eardrops.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Administrative claims data analysis, including diagnoses and procedure detail for physician office and hospital visits and pharmacy dispensing events in children eligible for Medicaid fee-for-service benefits in 29 states between 1999 and 2006.

Subjects and Methods

Eligible patients (age <18 years) had to have received a study eardrop within 12 months after first diagnosis of NITM. The follow-up period started from the first eardrop dispensing.

Main Outcome Measures

We compared the 12-month risk of SNHL using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for SNHL risk factors.

Results

We found 982 SNHL cases in 134,598 children treated with neomycin or fluoroquinolone eardrops. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 1, 2, and 3 or more prescriptions of neomycin was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.07), 1.45 (1.05-2.01), and 1.30 (0.71-2.36), respectively, when adjusted for SNHL risk factors, the interval between initial diagnosis of NITM and eardrop initiation, and total number of eardrop prescriptions. The results remained unchanged for several sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Short-term use of neomycin eardrops in patients with NITMs is not associated with an increased risk of SNHL; however, repeated doses (ie, ≥2 prescriptions) showed a significant association with an increased risk of SNHL.

Management of malignant (necrotising) otitis externa

Although malignant (necrotising) otitis externa is not a common diagnosis, there have been a number of recently reported cases with pathogens other than Pseudomonas aeruginosa as the causative organism. In addition, there are many published reports of resistance to antibiotics in cases of malignant otitis externa caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This review aims to assess the cases reported and to clarify the current opinion on the diagnostic criteria and management of such cases.

Otitis externa: a clinical review

This article provides a clinical overview of otitis externa, focusing on clinical aspects of the aetiology, diagnosis and management of this important and debilitating condition.

The management of otitis externa in UK general practice

Acute otitis externa is common and provides a heavy workload for general practitioners. We aim to determine the first-line treatment used by general practitioners in the management of otitis externa and subsequent second-line treatment in a hospital ENT clinic. In addition, this study aims to ascertain whether local and national guidelines are being followed appropriately. A prospective observational study on the management of otitis externa in consecutive patients referred to an ENT emergency clinic was undertaken. Data were collected and analysed on symptoms, initial management by general practitioners, findings and treatment in the ENT clinic. A total of 106 patients were studied. The mean duration of symptoms before presentation to clinic was 13 days; 42% of patients received no treatment by their GP prior to referral to the ENT emergency clinic. Only 14% of patients received topical antibiotics alone, whilst 44% received oral antibiotics, either alone or in conjunction with topical antibiotics by their GP. Of the 106 patients, 86% received topical antibiotics in the ENT emergency clinic and oral antibiotics were reserved for those presenting with complicated acute otitis externa. Topical antibiotics are associated with a decrease in disease persistence, whilst oral antibiotics are associated with an increase. However, general practitioners are prescribing oral antibiotics more often than required. There are few regional guidelines and no explicit national guidelines on the management of acute otitis externa for GPs to refer to. We suggest the implementation of national guidelines to aid clinical practice.

Interventions for acute otitis externa

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis externa is an inflammatory condition of the ear canal, with or without infection. Symptoms include ear discomfort, itchiness, discharge and impaired hearing. It is also known as 'swimmer's ear' and can usually be treated successfully with a course of ear drops.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute otitis externa.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our search for published and unpublished trials included the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; mRCT and additional sources. The date of the most recent search was 6 January 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating ear cleaning, topical medication or systemic therapy in the treatment of acute otitis externa were eligible.We excluded complicated acute otitis externa; otitis externa secondary to otitis media or chronic suppurative otitis media; chronic otitis externa; fungal otitis externa (otomycosis); eczematous otitis externa; viral otitis externa and furunculosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed eligibility and quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen randomised controlled trials with a total of 3382 participants were included. Three meta-analyses were possible. The overall quality of studies was low.Topical antimicrobials containing steroids were significantly more effective than placebo drops: OR 11 (95% CI 2.00 to 60.57; one trial).In general, no clinically meaningful differences were noted in clinical cure rates between the various topical interventions reviewed. One notable exception involved a trial of high quality which showed that acetic acid was significantly less effective when compared with antibiotic/steroid drops in terms of cure rate at two and three weeks (OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.62) and OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.58) respectively).One trial of low quality comparing quinolone with non-quinolone antibiotics did not find any difference in clinical cure rate.No trials evaluated the effectiveness of ear cleaning.Only two trials evaluated steroid-only drops. One trial of low quality suggested no significant difference between steroid and antibiotic/steroid but did not report the magnitude or precision of the result. Another trial of moderate quality comparing an oral antihistamine with topical steroid against topical steroid alone found that cure rates in both groups were high and comparable (100% (15/15) and 94% (14/15) respectively at three weeks).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of high quality trials evaluating interventions for acute otitis externa. The results of this systematic review are largely based on odds ratios calculated from single trials, most of which have very broad 95% confidence intervals because of small to modest sample sizes. The findings may not be wholly generalisable to primary care for a variety of reasons; only two of the 19 trials included in the review were conducted in a primary care population setting, and in 11 of the 19 trials ear cleaning formed part of the treatment (an intervention unlikely to be available in primary care). Despite these reservations, some meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the evidence available:Topical treatments alone, as distinct from systemic ones, are effective for uncomplicated acute otitis externa. In most cases the choice of topical intervention does not appear to influence the therapeutic outcome significantly. Any observed differences in efficacy were usually minor and not consistently present at each follow-up visit. Acetic acid was effective and comparable to antibiotic/steroid at week 1. However, when treatment needed to be extended beyond this point it was less effective. In addition, patient symptoms lasted two days longer in the acetic acid group compared to antibiotic/steroid.The evidence for steroid-only drops is very limited and as yet not robust enough to allow us to reach a conclusion or provide recommendations. Further investigation is needed.Given that most topical treatments are equally effective, it would appear that in most cases the preferred choice of topical treatment may be determined by other factors, such as risk of ototoxicity, risk of contact sensitivity, risk of developing resistance, availability, cost and dosing schedule. Factors such as speed of healing and pain relief are yet to be determined for many topical treatments and may also influence this decision.Patients prescribed antibiotic/steroid drops can expect their symptoms to last for approximately six days after treatment has begun. Although patients are usually treated with topical medication for seven to 10 days it is apparent that this will undertreat some patients and overtreat others. It may be more useful when prescribing ear drops to instruct patients to use them for at least a week. If they have symptoms beyond the first week they should continue the drops until their symptoms resolve (and possibly for a few days after), for a maximum of a further seven days. Patients with persisting symptoms beyond two weeks should be considered treatment failures and alternative management initiated.