Topical and oral steroids for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. Although most episodes of OME in children resolve spontaneously within a few months, when persistent it may lead to behavioural problems and a delay in expressive language skills. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, medical, surgical and other treatments, such as autoinflation. Oral or topical steroids are sometimes used to reduce inflammation in the middle ear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of topical and oral steroids for OME in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies on 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared topical or oral steroids with either placebo or watchful waiting (no treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes, determined by a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise, were: 1) hearing, 2) OME-specific quality of life and 3) systemic corticosteroid side effects. Secondary outcomes were: 1) presence/persistence of OME, 2) other adverse effects (including local nasal effects), 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial outcomes, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function and 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies in this review (2770 children). Most studies of oral steroids used prednisolone for 7 to 14 days. Studies of topical (nasal) steroids used various preparations (beclomethasone, fluticasone and mometasone) for between two weeks and three months. All studies had at least some concerns regarding risk of bias. Here we report our primary outcomes and main secondary outcome, at the longest reported follow-up. Oral steroids compared to placebo Oral steroids probably result in little or no difference in the proportion of children with normal hearing after 12 months (69.7% of children with steroids, compared to 61.1% of children receiving placebo, risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.33; 1 study, 332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in OME-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) in OM8-30 score 0.07, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.34; 1 study, 304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Oral steroids may reduce the number of children with persistent OME at 6 to 12 months, but the size of the effect was uncertain (absolute risk reduction ranging from 13.3% to 45%, number needed to treat (NNT) of between 3 and 8; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain regarding the risk of systemic corticosteroid side effects, and we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome. Oral steroids compared to no treatment Oral steroids may result in little or no difference in the persistence of OME after three to nine months (74.5% children receiving steroids versus 73% of those receiving placebo; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 2 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence on adverse effects was very uncertain. We did not identify any evidence on hearing or disease-related quality of life. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to placebo We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean change in hearing threshold after two months was -0.3 dB lower (95% CI -6.05 to 5.45; 1 study, 78 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that nasal steroids make little or no difference to disease-specific quality of life after nine months (OM8-30 score, MD 0.05 higher, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.46; 1 study, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of nasal steroids on persistence of OME at up to one year. Two studies reported this: one showed a potential benefit for nasal steroids, the other showed a benefit with placebo (2 studies, 206 participants). The evidence was also very uncertain regarding the risk of corticosteroid-related side effects, as we were unable to provide a pooled effect estimate. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to no treatment We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean difference in final hearing threshold after four weeks was 1.95 dB lower (95% CI -3.85 to -0.05; 1 study, 168 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nasal steroids may reduce the persistence of OME after eight weeks, but the evidence was very uncertain (58.5% of children receiving steroids, compared to 81.3% of children without treatment, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 2 studies, 134 participants). We did not identify any evidence on disease-related quality of life or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, oral steroids may have little effect in the treatment of OME, with little improvement in the number of children with normal hearing and no effect on quality of life. There may be a reduction in the proportion of children with persistent disease after 12 months. However, this benefit may be small and must be weighed against the potential for adverse effects associated with oral steroid use. The evidence for nasal steroids was all low- or very low-certainty. It is therefore less clear if nasal steroids have any impact on hearing, quality of life or persistence of OME. Evidence on adverse effects was very limited. OME is likely to resolve spontaneously for most children. The potential benefit of treatment may therefore be small and should be balanced with the risk of adverse effects. Future studies should aim to determine which children are most likely to benefit from treatment, rather than offering interventions to all children.

Antibiotics versus non-antibiotic treatments for acute otitis externa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Otitis externa is a condition causing inflammation of the outer ear canal, which presents with itching, discharge and pain. Most cases of acute otitis externa are caused by bacterial infection and are thus treated with antibiotics. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials aims to assess the effectiveness of topical non-antibiotic treatments compared to topical antibiotic treatment for the treatment of acute otitis externa.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis databases searched: Cochrane Library including ClinicalTrials.gov; MEDLINE; World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Web of Science to identify randomised clinical trials evaluating topical antibiotics and topical non-antibiotic agents in adults and children with acute otitis externa. Non-antibiotic therapeutics for comparison with topical antibiotics included antiseptics, steroids, non-pharmaceuticals and astringents.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials were eligible for inclusion, with 10 combined in meta-analysis. Data could be pooled comparing antiseptic and steroid monotherapies with topical antibiotic agents. There were no significant differences in cure rates in any pairwise comparisons. Individually, the majority of studies favoured topical antiseptics or steroids over antibiotics, however these differences were not significant when pooled in meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Antiseptic, steroid and antibiotic monotherapies are all effective for the management of acute otitis externa. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that topical antiseptic or steroid agents are superior or inferior to topical antibiotics.

Predictors and risk factors for admission to critical care in cervicofacial infections: a Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study

Cervicofacial infections carry significant morbidity. Patients present on a broad spectrum of severity, with some requiring outpatient management and others admission to higher level care. Recognition of risk factors is helpful in decision making regarding the need for admission to higher level care. Prospective data were captured on 1002 patients in 25 centres across 17 regions of the United Kingdom (UK) by the Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC). Patients admitted to critical care were compared with those who received ward-level care. Multivariate and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to identify predictors for critical care admission. Our results show that the best predictor for critical care admission is the presence of three or more features of airway compromise (AUC 0.779), followed by C-reactive protein (CRP) >100 mg/L (OR 2.70; 95% CI 1.59 to 4.58; p < 0.005), submandibular space involvement (OR 3.82; 95% CI 1.870 to 7.81; p = 0.003), white cell count (WCC) >12 × 10⁹/ dl (1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10; p = 0.03), and positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (OR 2.78; CI 1.35 to 5.80; p = 0.006). Admission to critical care is multifactorial, however, the presence of three or more features of airway compromise is the best predictor. Awareness of this alongside other key clinical findings in cervicofacial infections may allow for the early recognition of patients who may require escalation to critical care.

Current thinking in the management of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck

Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is an aggressive, rare, malignant tumour that accounts for about 1% of all head and neck neoplasms and 10% of all salivary gland tumours. It is characterised by frequent local recurrences and distant metastases. Growth is slow but relentless, and progression poses a challenge to head and neck clinicians. Many small retrospective studies have described its clinical management, but the lack of multicentre, randomised, controlled trials has resulted in inconsistencies in management globally. We have focused on three key management-related controversies: the role of elective neck dissection (END) for the N0 neck; the role of adjuvant treatment or radiotherapy; and finally, the follow-up protocol, particularly cross-sectional surveillance imaging of the full body or chest computed tomography (CT) alone, and options for treatment if metastases are found. The paucity of published studies may reflect the inconsistencies that exist in the management of ACC of the head and neck in the UK. The collaboration of head and neck centres would, we think, help to correct the imbalance in these three domains of care.

Current thinking in management of the neck (including contralateral neck) in ipsilateral recurrent or second primary oral squamous cell carcinoma

Metastasis to the neck in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) has a huge impact on long-term survival and prognosis, and its incidence varies. Due consideration therefore should be given to management of the neck in each individual case. The pathways in patients with primary oral SCC are well-established, but there is a paucity of published papers on management of the neck in those with ipsilateral recurrent or second primary oral SCC whose necks have previously been operated on with or without radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, or treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy alone. These patients may be under treated because of failure to stage the most likely drainage site, and are likely to have a worse outcome if there is macroscopic recurrence in the neck after independent treatment of the recurrent or second primary tumour. Based on the current review, we think there is a need for a multicentre, collaborative, retrospective review of the outcomes of patients with ipsilateral second primaries or recurrent oral SCC in the previously treated neck. Our recommendations include consideration of positron emission tomography-computed tomography in all patients with recurrent or second primary oral SCC (if "hot" - neck dissection, if "cold" - sentinel node biopsy); consideration of sentinel node biopsy in all patients with recurrent or second primary oral SCC who have previously had treatment to the neck; and finally, consideration of definitive management of the sentinel biopsy zone or region if the node is invaded.

Current update on the diagnosis and management of head and neck soft tissue sarcomas

Head and neck soft tissue sarcomas are a group of rare heterogeneous tumours arising from embryonic mesoderm. They comprise <1% of all head and neck malignancies and 5-15% of all sarcomas with most head and neck sarcomas arising from soft tissues. Although rare, they are associated with both high recurrence and mortality rates. We review the current management of head and neck soft tissue sarcomas.