Erythromycin in acute laryngitis in adults

Antibiotics for treatment of sore throat in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence it is important to establish their efficacy in treating sore throat and preventing secondary complications.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics for reducing symptoms of sore throat for child and adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2021, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2021), Embase (January 1990 to April 2021), and two trial registries (searched 6 April 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications amongst children and adults seeking medical care for sore throat symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data, resolving any differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted the trial authors from three studies for additional information. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the efficacy of antibiotics on our primary outcomes (sore throat at day three and one week) and secondary outcomes (fever and headache symptoms and incidence of acute rheumatic fever, acute glomerulonephritis, acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, and quinsy).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials with 15,337 cases of sore throat. The majority of included studies were conducted in the 1950s, during which time the rates of serious complications (especially acute rheumatic fever) were much higher than today. Although clinical antibiotic trials for sore throat and respiratory symptoms are still being conducted, it is unusual for them to include placebo or 'no treatment' control arms, which is a requirement for inclusion in the review. The age of participants ranged from younger than one year to older than 50 years, but most participants across all studies were adults. Although all studies recruited patients presenting with symptoms of sore throat, few of them distinguished between bacterial and viral aetiology. Bias may have been introduced through non-clarity in treatment allocation procedures and lack of blinding in some studies. Harms from antibiotics were poorly or inconsistently reported, and were thus not quantified for this review. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and headache at day three were reduced by using antibiotics, although 82% of participants in the placebo or no treatment group were symptom-free by one week. The reduction in sore throat symptoms at day three (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.80; 16 studies, 3730 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was greater than at one week in absolute numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75; 14 studies, 3083 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) due to many cases in both treatment groups having resolved by this time. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 18. Compared with placebo or no treatment, antibiotics did not significantly reduce fever at day three (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; 8 studies, 1443 participants; high-certainty evidence), but did reduce headache at day three (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70; 4 studies, 1020 participants; high-certainty evidence). 2. Suppurative complications Whilst the prevalence of suppurative complications was low, antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 10 studies, 3646 participants; high-certainty evidence) and quinsy within two months (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35; 8 studies, 2433 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those receiving placebo or no treatment, but not acute sinusitis within 14 days (Peto OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05; 8 studies, 2387 participants; high-certainty evidence). 3. Non-suppurative complications There were too few cases of acute glomerulonephritis to determine whether there was a protective effect of antibiotics compared with placebo against this complication (Peto OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 10 studies, 5147 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever within two months when compared to the control group (Peto OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; 18 studies, 12,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It should be noted that the overall prevalence of acute rheumatic fever was very low, particularly in the later studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics probably reduce the number of people experiencing sore throat, and reduce the likelihood of headache, and some sore throat complications. As the effect on symptoms can be small, clinicians must judge on an individual basis whether it is clinically justifiable to use antibiotics to produce this effect, and whether the underlying cause of the sore throat is likely to be of bacterial origin. Furthermore, the balance between modest symptom reduction and the potential hazards of antimicrobial resistance must be recognised. Few trials have attempted to measure symptom severity. If antibiotics reduce the severity as well as the duration of symptoms, their benefit will have been underestimated in this meta-analysis. Additionally, more trials are needed in low-income countries, in socio-economically deprived sections of high-income countries, as well as in children.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia) (Update)

Objective

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on treating patients who present with dysphonia, which is characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication and/or quality of life. Dysphonia affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in its life. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where dysphonia would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and treat patients with dysphonia.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of care for patients with dysphonia, based on current best evidence. Expert consensus to fill evidence gaps, when used, is explicitly stated and supported with a detailed evidence profile for transparency. Specific objectives of the guideline are to reduce inappropriate variations in care, produce optimal health outcomes, and minimize harm. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of advanced practice nursing, bronchoesophagology, consumer advocacy, family medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, laryngology, neurology, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pediatrics, professional voice, pulmonology, and speech-language pathology.

Action Statements

The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination to identify factors where expedited laryngeal evaluation is indicated. These include, but are not limited to, recent surgical procedures involving the head, neck, or chest; recent endotracheal intubation; presence of concomitant neck mass; respiratory distress or stridor; history of tobacco abuse; and whether the patient is a professional voice user. (2) Clinicians should advocate voice therapy for patients with dysphonia from a cause amenable to voice therapy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should identify dysphonia in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces quality of life (QOL). (2) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination for underlying causes of dysphonia and factors that modify management. (3) Clinicians should perform laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform laryngoscopy, when dysphonia fails to resolve or improve within 4 weeks or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected. (4) Clinicians should perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist (SLP). (5) Clinicians should advocate for surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with dysphonia with conditions amenable to surgical intervention, such as suspected malignancy, symptomatic benign vocal fold lesions that do not respond to conservative management, or glottic insufficiency. (6) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of dysphonia caused by spasmodic dysphonia and other types of laryngeal dystonia. (7) Clinicians should inform patients with dysphonia about control/preventive measures. (8) Clinicians should document resolution, improvement or worsened symptoms of dysphonia, or change in QOL of patients with dysphonia after treatment or observation. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 1 action: (1) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat dysphonia. The guideline update group made recommendations against other actions: (1) Clinicians should not obtain computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a primary voice complaint prior to visualization of the larynx. (2) Clinicians should not prescribe antireflux medications to treat isolated dysphonia, based on symptoms alone attributed to suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), without visualization of the larynx. (3) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe corticosteroids for patients with dysphonia prior to visualization of the larynx. The policy level for the following recommendation about laryngoscopy at any time was an option: (1) Clinicians may perform diagnostic laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with dysphonia.

Disclaimer

This clinical practice guideline is not intended as an exhaustive source of guidance for managing dysphonia (hoarseness). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and it may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem. Differences from Prior Guideline (1) Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply (2) Inclusion of 3 new guidelines, 16 new systematic reviews, and 4 new randomized controlled trials (3) Inclusion of a consumer advocate on the guideline update group (4) Changes to 9 KASs from the original guideline (5) New KAS 3 (escalation of care) and KAS 13 (outcomes) (6) Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs for patients with dysphonia

Hoarseness-causes and treatments

BACKGROUND

Hoarseness (dysphonia) is the reason for about 1% of all consultations in primary care. It has many causes, ranging from self-limited laryngitis to malignant tumors of the vocal cords.

METHODS

This review is based on literature retrieved by a selective search in PubMed employing the terms "hoarseness," "hoarse voice," and "dysphonia," on the relevant guideline of the American Academy of Otolaryngology -Head and Neck Surgery, and on Cochrane reviews.

RESULTS

Hoarseness can be caused by acute (42.1%) and chronic laryngitis (9.7%), functional vocal disturbances (30%), and benign (10.7-31%) and malignant tumors (2.2-3%), as well as by neurogenic disturbances such as vocal cord paresis (2.8-8%), physiologic aging of the voice (2%), and psychogenic factors (2-2.2 %). Hoarseness is very rarely a manifestation of internal medical illness. The treatment of hoarseness has been studied in only a few randomized controlled trials, all of which were on a small scale. Voice therapy is often successful in the treatment of functional and organic vocal disturbances (level 1a evidence). Surgery on the vocal cords is indicated to treat tumors and inadequate vocal cord closure. The only entity causing hoarseness that can be treated pharmacologically is chronic laryngitis associated with gastro-esophageal reflux, which responds to treatment of the reflux disorder. The empirical treatment of hoarseness with antibiotics or corticosteroids is not recommended.

CONCLUSION

Voice therapy, vocal cord surgery, and drug therapy for appropriate groups of patients with hoarseness are well documented as effective by the available evidence. In patients with risk factors, especially smokers, hoarseness should be immediately evaluated by laryngos - copy.

Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original review published in 2005. Acute laryngitis is a common illness worldwide. Diagnosis is often made by case history alone and treatment often targets symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic therapies in adults with acute laryngitis. A secondary objective was to report the rates of adverse events associated with these treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), LILACS (1982 to December 2014) and BIOSIS (1980 to December 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo for acute laryngitis. The main outcome was objective voice scores.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and synthesised data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (351 participants) that had moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. We downgraded the studies because of limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias), imprecision and inconsistency of results. We included a new trial presented only as a conference abstract in this update.In one study of acute laryngitis in adults, 100 participants were randomised to receive penicillin V (800 mg twice daily for five days) or an identical placebo. A recording of each patient reading a standardised text was made at the first visit, during re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months. No significant differences were found between the groups. The trial also measured symptoms reported by participants and found no significant differences.One study investigated erythromycin for acute laryngitis in 106 adults. The mean objective voice scores measured at the first visit, at re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months did not significantly differ between the groups. At one week there were significant beneficial differences in the severity of reported vocal symptoms (slight, moderate and severe) as judged by participants (P value = 0.042). However, the rates of participants having improved voice disturbance (subjective symptoms) at one and two weeks were not significantly different among groups. Comparing erythromycin and placebo groups on the rate of persistence of cough at two weeks, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.97, P value = 0.04) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5.87 (95% CI 3.09 to 65.55). We calculated a RR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.90, P value = 0.034) and a NNTB of 3.76 (95% CI 2.27 to 13.52; P value = 0.01) for the subjective voice scores at one week.A third trial from Russia included 145 patients with acute laryngitis symptoms. Participants were randomised to three treatment groups: Group 1: seven-day course of fusafungine (six times a day by inhalation); Group 2: seven-day course of fusafungine (six times a day by inhalation) plus clarithromycin (250 mg twice daily for seven days); Group 3: no treatment. Clinical cure rates were measured at days 5 ± 1, 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. The authors reported significant differences in the rates of clinical cure at day 5 ± 1 favouring fusafungine (one trial; 93 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.20; P value = 0.04) and fusafungine plus clarithromycin (one trial 97 participants; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.16; P value = 0.05) when compared to no treatment. However, no significant differences were found at days 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. Also, no significant differences were found when comparing fusafungine to fusafungine plus clarithromycin at days 5 ± 1, 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics do not appear to be effective in treating acute laryngitis when assessing objective outcomes. They appear to be beneficial for some subjective outcomes. Erythromycin could reduce voice disturbance at one week and cough at two weeks when measured subjectively. Fusafungine could increase the cure rate at day five. The included RCTs had important methodological problems and these modest benefits from antibiotics may not outweigh their cost, adverse effects or negative consequences for antibiotic resistance patterns.

Antibiotics for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat for patients in primary care settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to July week 1, 2013) and EMBASE (January 1990 to July 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted trial authors from three studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials with 12,835 cases of sore throat. We did not identify any new trials in this 2013 update. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and fever were reduced by about half by using antibiotics. The greatest difference was seen at day three. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 21. 2. Non-suppurative complications The trend was antibiotics protecting against acute glomerulonephritis but there were too few cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two-thirds within one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.60). 3. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); acute sinusitis within 14 days (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and quinsy within two months (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47) compared to those taking placebo. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day three (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if throat swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97 if negative. Similarly at week one the RR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative Streptococcus swabs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in high-income countries requires treating many with antibiotics for one to benefit. This NNTB may be lower in low-income countries. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about 16 hours overall.

Assessing factors related to the pharmacologic management of laryngeal diseases and disorders

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To examine how age, gender, comorbidity, geography, provider type, and laryngeal pathology influence the use of pharmacological treatment in managing patients with laryngeal disorders.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of data from a large, nationally representative, administrative, US claims database.

METHODS

Patients with a laryngeal disorder based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008, seen as an outpatient by a primary care physician (PCP), otolaryngologist, or both and continuously enrolled for 12 months were included. Data regarding pharmacy claims, age, gender, geographic location, comorbid conditions, provider type, and laryngeal diagnosis were collected. To identify factors that influenced whether a patient received a medication or not, a logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

Of almost 55 million individuals in the database, 258,705 had a laryngeal diagnosis 12 months post-index date follow-up and an outpatient encounter with a PCP, otolaryngologist, or both. A total of 135,973 (52.6%) unique patients, mean age 47.4 years (22.2 standard deviation [SD]), with 61.9% female, received a medication, and 122,732 (47.4%), mean age 47.4 years (19.8 SD), with 65.8% female, did not. Higher odds ratios for medication treatment were associated with PCPs versus otolaryngologists, acute laryngitis, the South region, and patients with comorbid conditions. Variable prescription patterns were also observed for age and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors are associated with the use of medical treatment for laryngeal disorders.

Prescribing Patterns of Primary Care Physicians and Otolaryngologists in the Management of Laryngeal Disorders

Objective

To examine how primary care physicians (PCPs) and otolaryngologists use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antibiotics, antihistamines, oral and inhaled steroids, and histamine 2 antagonists in the treatment of laryngeal disorders.

Study Design and Setting

Retrospective analysis of data from a large, national administrative US claims database.

Subjects and Methods

Patients with laryngeal disorders based on ICD-9-CM codes from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2008, seen as an outpatient by a PCP, otolaryngologist, or both and continuously enrolled for 12 months were included. Pharmacy claims, age, gender, geographic location, comorbid conditions, provider type, and laryngeal diagnosis were collected. Random-effects logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

Of approximately 55 million individuals, 135,973 had a laryngeal diagnosis, 12 months post–index date follow-up, and an outpatient encounter with a PCP, otolaryngologist, or both. Acute laryngitis was one of the most common reasons PCPs prescribed each medication class. Nonspecific dysphonia was the most common reason otolaryngologists prescribed each medication class. Patients seen by a PCP had a higher odds ratio for receiving an antibiotic and antihistamine, and patients seen by an otolaryngologist had a greater odds ratio for receiving a PPI and inhaled steroids. After adjusting for other variables in the model, the probability that a patient seen by a PCP would receive an antibiotic was .55 and a PPI .13. If seeing an otolaryngologist, it was .44 and .22, respectively.

Conclusion

Differences exist regarding the prescribing patterns of PCPs and otolaryngologists in treating patients with laryngeal disorders.

Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 2, 2007 of The Cochrane Library. Acute laryngitis is a common illness worldwide. Diagnosis is often made by case history alone and treatment is often directed toward controlling symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic therapies in adults with acute laryngitis. A secondary objective was to report the rates of adverse events associated with these treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 12, MEDLINE (January 1966 to January week 3, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to January 2013), LILACS (1982 to January 2013) and BIOSIS (1980 to January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo for acute laryngitis. The main outcome was objective voice scores.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and descriptively synthesised data.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two trials met the study inclusion criteria after extensive literature searches. One hundred participants were randomised to receive either penicillin V (800 mg twice a day for five days), or an identical placebo, in a study of acute laryngitis in adults. A tape recording of each patient reading a standardised text was obtained during the first visit, subsequently during re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months. No significant differences were found between the groups. The trial also measured symptoms reported by participants and found no significant differences.The second trial investigated erythromycin for treating acute laryngitis in 106 adults. The mean objective voice scores measured at the first visit, at re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months did not significantly differ between control and intervention groups. At one week there were significant beneficial differences in the severity of reported vocal symptoms as judged by the participants (P = 0.042). Comparing the erythromycin and placebo groups on subjective voice scores, the a priori risk ratio (RR) was 0.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.96, P = 0.034) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 4.5.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics appear to have no benefit in treating acute laryngitis. Erythromycin could reduce voice disturbance at one week and cough at two weeks when measured subjectively. We consider that these outcomes are not relevant in clinical practice. The implications for practice are that prescribing antibiotics should not be done in the first instance as they will not objectively improve symptoms.

The impact of laryngeal disorders on work-related dysfunction

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To determine the short-term disability (STD) and lost work productivity related to laryngeal disorders.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of a national database of work absence and STD claims was performed.

METHODS

Patients with 12 months of follow-up who had an STD claim specifically linked to a dysphonia diagnosis based on ICD-9 codes were identified during the period of January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2008. Patient age, sex, and diagnosis and the total number of work days absent were determined. Using the mean national hourly wage, productivity losses in terms of lost wages were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 18,466 unique patients with an STD claim, 386 (2.1%) had an STD claim due to a laryngeal disorder. The mean age was 45.9 years (standard deviation, 9.6) with 53.2% male. The mean number of work days absent was 39.2 days (95% confidence interval: 31.9-46.5). Total STD payments in 2008 dollars were $647,269.30 with a mean per person in 12 months of $3,406.68. Total and mean lost wages in 12 months were $843,198.72 and $4,437.89, respectively. Patients with laryngeal cancer had the most days absent and highest total STD payment.

CONCLUSIONS

Laryngeal disorders lead to work-related disability with STD and productivity losses and represent a significant societal burden. Managing work limitations from laryngeal disorders is an important public health goal.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia)

Objective:

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing hoarseness (dysphonia), defined as a disorder characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces voice-related quality of life (QOL). Hoarseness affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in their lives. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where hoarseness would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with hoarseness.

Purpose:

The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for hoarseness (dysphonia), reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate steroid use, reduce inappropriate use of anti-reflux medications, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of laryngoscopy, voice therapy, and surgery. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of neurology, speech-language pathology, professional voice teaching, family medicine, pulmonology, geriatric medicine, nursing, internal medicine, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pediatrics, and consumers.

Results

The panel made strong recommendations that 1) the clinician should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat hoarseness and 2) the clinician should advocate voice therapy for patients diagnosed with hoarseness that reduces voice-related QOL. The panel made recommendations that 1) the clinician should diagnose hoarseness (dysphonia) in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces voice-related QOL; 2) the clinician should assess the patient with hoarseness by history and/or physical examination for factors that modify management, such as one or more of the following: recent surgical procedures involving the neck or affecting the recurrent laryngeal nerve, recent endotracheal intubation, radiation treatment to the neck, a history of tobacco abuse, and occupation as a singer or vocal performer; 3) the clinician should visualize the patient's larynx, or refer the patient to a clinician who can visualize the larynx, when hoarseness fails to resolve by a maximum of three months after onset, or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected; 4) the clinician should not obtain computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the patient with a primary complaint of hoarseness prior to visualizing the larynx; 5) the clinician should not prescribe anti-reflux medications for patients with hoarseness without signs or symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease; 6) the clinician should not routinely prescribe oral corticosteroids to treat hoarseness; 7) the clinician should visualize the larynx before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist; and 8) the clinician should prescribe, or refer the patient to a clinician who can prescribe, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of hoarseness caused by adductor spasmodic dysphonia. The panel offered as options that 1) the clinician may perform laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with hoarseness, or may refer the patient to a clinician who can visualize the larynx; 2) the clinician may prescribe anti-reflux medication for patients with hoarseness and signs of chronic laryngitis; and 3) the clinician may educate/counsel patients with hoarseness about control/preventive measures.

Disclaimer:

This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing hoarseness (dysphonia). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.

Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Acute laryngitis is a common illness worldwide. Diagnosis is often made by case history alone and treatment is often directed towards controlling symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of different antibiotic therapies in adults suffering acute laryngitis. A secondary objective was to report the rates of adverse events associated with these treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically screened the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1966 to December Week 2 2006); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2006), LILACS (from 1982 to December 2006 ) and BIOSIS (1980 to June 2002). Other strategies included hand searching relevant journals, searching ongoing trial databases and general databases such as Google scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo in acute laryngitis. The main outcome measurement was objective voice scores.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two review authors and then descriptively synthesized.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two trials met study inclusion criteria after extensive literature searches. One hundred participants were randomly selected to receive either penicillin V (800 mg twice a day for five days), or an identical placebo, in a study of penicillin V in acute laryngitis in adults. A tape recording of each patient reading a standardized text was obtained during the first visit, subsequently during re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow up after two to six months. No significant differences were found between the groups. The trial also measured symptoms reported by participants and found no significant differences. The second trial investigated erythromycin for treating acute laryngitis in 106 adults. The mean objective voice scores measured at the first visit, at re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow up after two to six months did not significantly differ between control and intervention groups. At one week there were significant beneficial differences in the severity of reported vocal symptoms as judged by the participants (P = 0.042). Comparing the erythromycin and placebo groups on subjective voice scores the a priori relative risk (RR) was 0.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.96, P = 0.034) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 4.5.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics appear to have no benefit in treating acute laryngitis. Erythromycin could reduce voice disturbance at one week and cough at two weeks when measured subjectively. We consider that these outcomes are not relevant in clinical practice. The implications for practice are that prescribing antibiotics should not be done in the first instance as they will not objectively improve symptoms.

Antibiotics for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a very common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2006) and EMBASE (January 1990 to December 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative or non-suppurative complications of sore throat.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potential studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data were then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two authors. Researchers from three studies were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 27 studies with 2835 cases of sore throat. 1. Non-suppurative complications: There was a trend for antibiotics to protect against acute glomerulonephritis, but there were insufficient cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two thirds (relative risk (RR) 0.22; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.08). 2. Suppurative complications: Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); of acute sinusitis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and of quinsy (peritonsillar abscess) compared to those taking placebo (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47). 3.

SYMPTOMS

Throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics by about one half. The greatest difference was seen at about 3 to 4 days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). By one week about 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free. The overall number need to treat to prevent one sore throat at day 3 was just under six (95% CI 4.9 to 7.0); at week 1 it was 21 (95% CI 13.2 to 47.9). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction: Analysis by: age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics, found no significant differences. Analysis of results of throat swabs showed that antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day 3, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if the swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.97) if negative. Similarly at week 1, RRs 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative swabs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics, most of whom will derive no benefit. In emerging economies (where rates of acute rheumatic fever are high, for example), the number needed to treat may be much lower for antibiotics to be considered effective. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about sixteen hours overall.

Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Acute laryngitis is a common illness worldwide. Diagnosis is often made by case history alone and treatment is often directed towards controlling symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of different antibiotic therapies in adults suffering acute laryngitis. A secondary objective was to report the rates of adverse events associated with these treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically screened the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to June Week 3 2004); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2004), LILACS (from 1982 to the 40th edition) and BIOSIS (1980 to June 2002). Other strategies included hand searching relevant journals, searching ongoing trial databases and general databases such as Alta Vista.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo in acute laryngitis. The main outcome measurement was objective voice scores.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two people and then descriptively synthesised.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two trials met study inclusion criteria after extensive literature searches. One hundred patients were randomly selected to receive either penicillin V (800 mg twice a day for five days), or an identical placebo, in a study of penicillin V in acute laryngitis in adults. A tape recording of each patient reading a standardised text was obtained during the first visit, subsequently during re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow up after two to six months. No significant differences were found between the groups. The trial also measured symptoms reported by patients and found no significant differences. The second trial investigated erythromycin for treating acute laryngitis in 106 adults. The mean objective voice scores measured at the first visit, at re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow up after two to six months did not significantly differ between control and intervention groups. At one week there were significant beneficial differences in the severity of reported vocal symptoms as judged by the patients (p = 0.042). Comparing the erythromycin and placebo groups on subjective voice scores the a priori relative risk (RR) was 0.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.96, p = 0.034) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 4.5.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics appear to have no benefit in treating acute laryngitis. Erythromycin could reduce voice disturbance at one week and cough at two weeks when measured subjectively. We consider that these outcomes are not relevant in clinical practice. The implications for practice are that prescribing antibiotics should not be done in the first instance as they will not objectively improve symptoms.

Antibiotics for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a very common reason for people to seek medical care. It is a disease that remits spontaneously, that is, 'cure' is not dependent on treatment. Nonetheless primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for sore throat and other upper respiratory tract infections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits of antibiotics in the management of sore throat.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Systematic search of the literature from 1945 to 2003, using electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2003); MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2003); EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2003), and the reference sections of the articles identified. We applied no language restrictions. We used abstracts of identified articles to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative complications (meaning: forming pus) and non-suppurative complications of sore throat.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened potential studies for inclusion and resolved differences in opinion by discussion. The reviewers then independently extracted the data from the selected studies. We contacted the authors of three studies to acquire additional information not available in published articles. Potential studies were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data was then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two reviewers. Authors of three studies were contacted to acquire additional information not available in published articles.

MAIN RESULTS

We included twenty-six studies, covering 12,669 cases of sore throat in the review.1. Non-suppurative complications There was a trend for protection against acute glomerulonephritis by antibiotics, but insufficient cases were recorded to be sure of this effect. Several studies found that antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever, to less than one third (odds ratio (OR) = 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20 to 0.45). 2. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media to about one quarter of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43) and reduced the incidence of acute sinusitis to about one half of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05). The incidence of quinsy was also reduced in relation to placebo group (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35). 3. Symptoms Symptoms of headache, throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics to about one half. The greatest time for this to be evident was at about three and a half days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). About 90% of treated and untreated patients were free of symptoms by one week. The overall number needed to treat to prevent one sore throat at day three was about 5.0 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8); and at one week was 14.2 (95% CI 11.5 to 20.6). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Subgroup analysis by age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics yielded no significant differences. The results of swabs of the throat for Streptococcus influenced the effect of antibiotics. If the swab was positive, antibiotics were more effective (the OR reduced to 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26) than if it was negative (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can be achieved only by treating with antibiotics many who will derive no benefit. In emerging economies where rates of for example acute rheumatic fever are high, the number needed to treat may be much lower. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by a mean of one day about half way through the illness (the time of maximal effect), and by about sixteen hours overall.

Responsible prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections

Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are responsible for a large amount of community antibacterial use worldwide. Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that most URTIs resolve naturally, even when bacteria are the cause. The high consumer expectation for antibacterials in URTIs requires intervention by the general practitioner and a number of useful strategies have been developed. Generic strategies, including eliciting patient expectations, avoiding the term 'just a virus', providing a value-for-money consultation, providing verbal and written information, empowering patients, conditional prescribing, directed education campaigns, and emphasis on symptomatic treatments, should be used as well as discussion of alternative medicines when relevant. The various conditions have differing rates of bacterial infection and require different approaches. For acute rhinitis, laryngitis and tracheitis, viruses are the only cause and, therefore, antibacterials are never required. In acute sore throat (pharyngitis) Streptococcus pyogenes is the only important bacterial cause. A scoring system can help to increase the likelihood of distinguishing a streptococcal as opposed to viral infection, or alternatively patients should be given antibacterials only if certain conditions are fulfilled. Strategies for treating acute otitis media vary in different countries. Most favour the strategy of prescribing antibacterials only when certain criteria are fulfilled, delaying antibacterial prescribing for at least 24 hours. In otitis media with effusion, on the other hand, there is no primary role for antibacterials, as the condition resolves naturally in almost all patients aged >3 months. Detailed strategies for acute sinusitis have not been worked out but restricting antibacterial prescribing to certain clinical complexes is currently recommended by several authorities because of the high natural resolution rate.

The prevalence of potentially pathogenic bacteria in nasopharyngeal samples from individuals with a long-standing cough-clinical value of a nasopharyngeal sample

BACKGROUND

A long-standing cough is a common cause for visits to a GP. If the patient also has a respiratory tract infection, one of the concerns of the doctor is to decide if the cough is caused by an underlying bacterial infection.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to investigate whether a nasopharyngeal sample, obtained in routine medical practice, could yield information about the aetiology of a long-standing cough in patients with a respiratory tract infection.

METHODS

The prevalence of potentially pathogenic bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis) in nasopharyngeal swab samples from 618 healthy individuals was compared with that from 236 patients with a respiratory tract infection and long-standing cough (>9 days) of the same age in a defined geographical area.

RESULTS

The proportion of cultures with potentially pathogenic bacteria decreased with age and was 44% among healthy individuals of pre-school age, 13% in schoolchildren and 6% in adults. The corresponding figures for patients with a long-standing cough were 83, 35 and 36%, respectively. All types of potentially pathogenic bacteria were found more frequently in pre-school children and in adults with a long-standing cough compared with healthy individuals of the same age.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a respiratory tract infection and a long-standing cough, where a bacterial infection is suspected on clinical grounds, a nasopharyngeal culture could yield information about the aetiology. If M.catarrhalis is found in pre-school children, or if H.influenzae is found in adults, they are likely to be the aetiological agent.

Moraxella catarrhalis: clinical significance, antimicrobial susceptibility and BRO beta-lactamases

Moraxella catarrhalis is an important pathogen of humans. It is a common cause of respiratory infections, particularly otitis media in children and lower respiratory tract infections in the elderly. Colonisation of the upper respiratory tract appears to be associated with infection in many cases, although this association is not well understood. Nosocomial transmission is being increasingly documented and the emergence of this organism as a cause of bacteremia is of concern. The widespread production of a beta-lactamase enzyme renders Moraxella catarrhalis resistant to the penicillins. Cephalosporins and beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations are effective for treatment of beta-lactamase producers, and the organism remains nearly universally susceptible to the macrolides, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines and the combination of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole. Two major beta-lactamase forms, BRO-1 and BRO-2, have been described on the basis of their isoelectric focusing patterns. The BRO-1 enzyme is found in the majority of beta-lactamase-producing isolates and confers a higher level of resistance to strains than BRO-2. The BRO enzymes are membrane associated and their production appears to be mediated by chromosomal determinants which are transmissible by an unknown mechanism. The origin of these novel proteins is unknown.

Evaluation of purified UspA from Moraxella catarrhalis as a vaccine in a murine model after active immunization

Moraxella catarrhalis causes otitis media, laryngitis, and respiratory infections in humans. A high-molecular-weight outer membrane protein from this bacterium named ubiquitous surface protein A (UspA) is present on all isolates. A monoclonal antibody (MAb) to UspA that recognizes a conserved epitope of this protein has been shown to promote pulmonary clearance of bacteria in passively immunized mice. In the present study, M. catarrhalis heterologous isolates were screened by dot blot with a panel of four additional MAbs specific for surface-exposed epitopes of UspA from M. catarrhalis isolate 035E. Three of the MAbs were specific for 035E, and the fourth reacted with 17 (74%) of the 23 isolates tested. Thus, UspA contains highly conserved, semiconserved, and variable surface-exposed epitopes. The UspA was purified from the 035E isolate by ion-exchange and size-exclusion chromatography, formulated with the adjuvant QS-21, and used to immunize BALB/c mice. Upon pulmonary challenge with either 035E or the heterologous isolate TTA24, significantly fewer bacteria were recovered from the lungs of immunized mice 6 h postchallenge than from control mice. The immune sera from mice or guinea pigs contained high titers of antibodies to the homologous isolate and heterologous isolates in a whole-bacterial-cell enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Sera against UspA, whether prepared in mice or guinea pigs, had complement-dependent bactericidal activity toward homologous and 11 heterologous M. catarrhalis isolates. These results indicate that the conserved epitopes of the UspA are highly immunogenic and elicit broadly reactive and biologically functional antibodies. UspA may offer protection against M. catarrhalis infections and is being further evaluated as a vaccine candidate.