Chronic suppurative otitis media.

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a leading global cause of potentially preventable hearing loss in children and adults, associated with socioeconomic deprivation. There is an absence of consensus on the definition of CSOM, which complicates efforts for prevention, treatment, and monitoring. CSOM occurs when perforation of the tympanic membrane is associated with severe or persistent inflammation in the middle ear, leading to hearing loss and recurrent or persistent ear discharge (otorrhoea). Cholesteatoma, caused by the inward growth of the squamous epithelium of the tympanic membrane into the middle ear, can also occur. The optimal treatment of discharge in CSOM is topical antibiotics. In resource-limited settings where topical antibiotics might not be available, topical antiseptics are an alternative. For persistent disease, surgery to repair the tympanic membrane or remove cholesteatoma might offer long-term resolution of otorrhoea and potential improvement to hearing. Recent developments in self-fitted air-conduction and bone-conduction hearing aids offer promise as new options for rehabilitation.

Hearing loss in Australian First Nations children at 6-monthly assessments from age 12 to 36 months: Secondary outcomes from randomised controlled trials of novel pneumococcal conjugate vaccine schedules.

BACKGROUND: In Australian remote communities, First Nations children with otitis media (OM)-related hearing loss are disproportionately at risk of developmental delay and poor school performance, compared to those with normal hearing. Our objective was to compare OM-related hearing loss in children randomised to one of 2 pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) formulations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In 2 sequential parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trials (the PREVIX trials), eligible infants were first allocated 1:1:1 at age 28 to 38 days to standard or mixed PCV schedules, then at age 12 months to PCV13 (13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, +P) or PHiD-CV10 (10-valent pneumococcal Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine, +S) (1:1). Here, we report prevalence and level of hearing loss outcomes in the +P and +S groups at 6-monthly scheduled assessments from age 12 to 36 months. From March 2013 to September 2018, 261 infants were enrolled and 461 hearing assessments were performed. Prevalence of hearing loss was 78% (25/32) in the +P group and 71% (20/28) in the +S group at baseline, declining to 52% (28/54) in the +P groups and 56% (33/59) in the +S group at age 36 months. At primary endpoint age 18 months, prevalence of moderate (disabling) hearing loss was 21% (9/42) in the +P group and 41% (20/49) in the +S group (difference -19%; (95% confidence interval (CI) [-38, -1], p = 0.07) and prevalence of no hearing loss was 36% (15/42) in the +P group and 16% (8/49) in the +S group (difference 19%; (95% CI [2, 37], p = 0.05). At subsequent time points, prevalence of moderate hearing loss remained lower in the +P group: differences -3%; (95% CI [-23, 18], p = 1.00 at age 24 months), -12%; (95% CI [-30, 6], p = 0.29 at age 30 months), and -9%; (95% CI [-23, 5], p = 0.25 at age 36 months). A major limitation was the small sample size, hence low power to reach statistical significance, thereby reducing confidence in the effect size. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a high prevalence and persistence of moderate (disabling) hearing loss throughout early childhood. We found a lower prevalence of moderate hearing loss and correspondingly higher prevalence of no hearing loss in the +P group, which may have substantial benefits for high-risk children, their families, and society, but warrant further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01735084 and NCT01174849.

Recurrent otitis media and behaviour problems in middle childhood: A longitudinal cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the long-term effects of early-life recurrent otitis media (OM) and subsequent behavioural problems in children at the age of 10 years. METHODS: Data from the Raine Study, a longitudinal pregnancy cohort, were used to categorise children into those with three or more episodes of OM (rOM group) and those without a history of recurrent OM in the first 3 years of life (reference group). The parent report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was used to assess child behaviour at the age of 10 years. Parental questionnaires were used to report past and present diagnoses of various mental health and developmental conditions, including attention, anxiety, depression, learning, and speech-language problems. Multiple linear and logistic models were used to analyse the data and were adjusted for a fixed set of key confounding variables. RESULTS: The linear regression analysis revealed significant, independent associations between a history of recurrent OM and higher Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores, including total, internalising, externalising, emotional, attention/hyperactivity and peer problems subscales. Logistic regression analyses revealed an independent increased likelihood for children in the rOM group to have a diagnosis of attention, anxiety, learning and speech-language problems. CONCLUSION: Children at 10 years of age with an early history of recurrent OM are more likely to exhibit attentional and behavioural problems when compared to children without a history of recurrent OM. These findings highlight the association between early-life recurrent OM and later behavioural problems that may require professional allied health-care interventions.

Do parent-reported early indicators predict later developmental language disorder? A Raine Study investigation.

BACKGROUND: Developmental language disorder (DLD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental conditions. Due to variable rates of language growth in children under 5 years, the early identification of children with DLD is challenging. Early indicators are often outlined by speech pathology regulatory bodies and other developmental services as evidence to empower caregivers in the early identification of DLD. AIMS: To test the predictive relationship between parent-reported early indicators and the likelihood of children meeting diagnostic criteria for DLD at 10 years of age as determined by standardized assessment measures in a population-based sample. METHODS: Data were leveraged from the prospective Raine Study (n = 1626 second-generation children: n = 104 with DLD; n = 1522 without DLD). These data were transformed into 11 predictor variables that reflect well-established early indicators of DLD from birth to 3 years, including if the child does not smile or interact with others, does not babble, makes only a few sounds, does not understand what others say, says only a few words, says words that are not easily understood, and does not combine words or put words together to make sentences. Family history (mother and father) of speech and language difficulties were also included as variables. Regression analyses were planned to explore the predictive relationship between this set of early indicator variables and likelihood of meeting DLD diagnostic criteria at 10 years. RESULTS: No single parent-reported indicator uniquely accounted for a significant proportion of children with DLD at 10 years of age. Further analyses, including bivariate analyses testing the predictive power of a cumulative risk index of combined predictors (odds ratio (OR) = 0.95, confidence interval (CI) = 0.85-1.09, p = 0.447) and the moderating effect of sex (OR = 0.89, CI = 0.59-1.32, p = 0.563) were also non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Parent reports of early indicators of DLD are well-intentioned and widely used. However, data from the Raine Study cohort suggest potential retrospective reporting bias in previous studies. We note that missing data for some indicators may have influenced the results. Implications for the impact of using early indicators as evidence to inform early identification of DLD are discussed. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject DLD is a relatively common childhood condition; however, children with DLD are under-identified and under-served. Individual variability in early childhood makes identification of children at risk of DLD challenging. A range of 'red flags' in communication development are promoted through speech pathology regulatory bodies and developmental services to assist parents to identify if their child should access services. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge No one parent-reported early indicator, family history or a cumulation of indicators predicted DLD at 10 years in the Raine study. Sex (specifically, being male) did not moderate an increased risk of DLD at 10 years in the Raine study. Previous studies reporting on clinical samples may be at risk of retrospective reporting bias. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The broad dissemination and use of 'red flags' is well-intentioned; however, demonstrating 'red flags' alone may not reliably identify those who are at later risk of DLD. Findings from the literature suggest that parent concern may be complemented with assessment of linguistic behaviours to increase the likelihood of identifying those who at risk of DLD. Approaches to identification and assessment should be considered alongside evaluation of functional impact to inform participation-based interventions.

Impact of ventilation tube insertion on long-term language outcomes at 6 and 10 years of age: A prospective pregnancy cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Investigating the impact of early childhood ventilation tube insertion (VTI) on long-term language outcomes. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: A total of 2900 pregnant women participated in the Raine Study between 1989 and 1991 in Western Australia, and 2868 children have been followed up. PARTICIPANTS: Based on parental reports, 314 children had a history of recurrent otitis media but did not undergo VTI (rOM group); another 94 received VTI (VTI group); while 1735 had no history of rOM (reference group) in the first 3 years of childhood. Children with data on outcomes and confounders were included in analyses of PPVT-R at ages 6 (n = 1567) and 10 years (n = 1313) and CELF-III at 10 years (n = 1410) (approximately 5% in the VTI group and 15% in the rOM group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised edition and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals® Preschool-3. RESULTS: At 6 years, mean PPVT-R scores were significantly lower in the VTI group than the reference group (ß = -3.3; 95% CI [-6.5 to -0.04], p = .047). At 10 years, while the difference between the VTI and reference groups was less pronounced for PPVT-R scores, there was a small but consistent trend of lower measures, on average, across CELF-III scores (expressive: ß = -3.4 [-7.1 to 0.27], p = .069; receptive: ß = -4.1 [-7.9 to -0.34], p = .033; total: ß = -3.9 [-7.5 to -0.21], p = .038). There was no evidence to suggest that language outcomes in the rOM group differed from the reference group. CONCLUSION: Lower scores of language outcomes in school-aged children who received VTI in early childhood may suggest a long-term risk which should be considered alongside the potential benefits of VTI.

Early onset of otitis media is a strong predictor of subsequent disease in urban Aboriginal infants: Djaalinj Waakinj cohort study.

AIM: Australian Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children in rural/remote areas suffer high rates of persistent otitis media (OM) from early infancy. We aimed to determine the proportion of Aboriginal infants living in an urban area who have OM and investigate associated risk factors. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2020, the Djaalinj Waakinj cohort study enrolled 125 Aboriginal infants at 0-12 weeks of age in the Perth South Metropolitan region, Western Australia. Proportion of children with OM based on tympanometry at ages 2, 6 and 12 months was evaluated, type B tympanogram indicating middle ear effusion. Potential risk factors were investigated by logistic regression with generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: The proportion of children with OM was 35% (29/83) at 2 months, 49% (34/70) at 6 months and 49% (33/68) at 12 months of age. About 70% (16/23) of those with OM at ages 2 and/or 6 months had OM at 12 months compared with 20% (3/15) if no prior OM (relative risk = 3.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-40.1). On multivariate analysis, infants living in houses with ≥1 person/room were at increased risk of OM (odds ratio = 1.78, 95% CI: 0.96-3.32). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of Aboriginal infants enrolled into the South Metropolitan Perth project have OM by the age of 6 months and early onset of disease strongly predicts subsequent OM. Early surveillance for OM in urban areas is needed for early detection and management to reduce the risk of long-term hearing loss which can have serious developmental, social, behavioural, educational and economic consequences.

The use of patient-report measures and intervention strategies for children and adolescents with chronic tinnitus: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic tinnitus during childhood/adolescence can be associated with impaired quality of life. Guidelines for managing paediatric tinnitus recommend assessment and interventions are often based upon the experiences and opinions of guideline committee members. OBJECTIVE: To examine patient response tools used for the assessment and management of childhood tinnitus and how interventions had been evaluated. DESIGN: A structured scoping review (i) identifying and critically appraising patient response measures (PRMs) assessing tinnitus in children/adolescents, and (ii) critically appraising evidence supporting reported interventions. Original papers written in English, involving paediatric participants ≤19 years, reporting (i) application of established PRMs to assess the experience of chronic tinnitus or (ii) application and evaluation of tinnitus interventions were included. STUDY SAMPLE: Papers written in English, identifying, or assessing the experience of chronic tinnitus (>3 months) as a primary complaint during childhood/adolescence in participants ≤19 years of age using a PRM and studies evaluating the application of non-pharmaceutical interventions for tinnitus in children/adolescents. RESULTS: Six studies involving the assessment of tinnitus during childhood/adolescence using a PRM were identified and evaluated. Three established (previously named, described, and published) PRMs were applied of which none were developed specifically for children/adolescents. Three behavioural tinnitus interventions and three combination intervention strategies (coupling of psychological intervention with sound enrichment) had been applied to and evaluated within paediatric populations. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinicians are seeing children/adolescents with tinnitus, they are evaluating and managing children's distress without appropriate PRMs, and little evidence exists to support clinical interventions.

Ear and hearing outcomes in Aboriginal infants living in an urban Australian area: the Djaalinj Waakinj birth cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the ear and hearing outcomes in Aboriginal infants in an Australian urban area. DESIGN: Aboriginal infants enrolled in the Djaalinj Waakinj prospective cohort study had ear health screenings at ages 2-4, 6-8 and 12-18 months and audiological assessment at ∼12 months of age. Sociodemographic, environmental characteristics, otoscopy, otoacoustic emissions, tympanometry and visual reinforcement audiometry data were collected. STUDY SAMPLE: 125 infants were enrolled in the study; 67 completed audiological assessment, 62, 54, and 58 of whom attended ear screenings at 2-4, 6-8 and 12-18 months. RESULTS: Of the children that attended the audiological assessment, 36.5%, 50% and 64.3% of infants had otitis media (OM) at 2-4, 6-8 and 12-18 months. Using a 10 dB correction factor, 44.8% of infants had hearing loss (HL) (≥ 25 dB HL) at ∼ 12 months of age. More males (X2=5.4 (1df, p = 0.02)) and infants with OM at audiological assessment (X2=5.8 (1df, p = 0.02)) had HL. More infants that used a pacifier at 12-18 months of age had HL (X2=4.7 (1df, p = 0.03)). CONCLUSION: Aboriginal infants in an urban area have high rates of HL and OM, which requires early surveillance and timely treatment to reduce the medical and developmental impacts of OM and HL.

The prevalence of and potential risk factors for Developmental Language Disorder at 10 years in the Raine Study.

AIM: This study sought to determine the prevalence of Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) in Australian school-aged children and associated potential risk factors for DLD at 10 years. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional design to estimate the prevalence of DLD in Generation 2 of the prospective Raine Study. Participants included 1626 children aged 10 years with available language data. Primary outcomes included variables matching diagnostic criteria for DLD. Associations of other potential prenatal and environmental variables were analysed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The prevalence of DLD in this sample was 6.4% (n = 104) at 10 years. This sub-cohort comprised 33.7% (n = 35) with expressive language deficits, 20.2% (n = 21) with receptive language deficits, and 46.2% (n = 48) with receptive-expressive deficits. No significant difference in sex distribution was observed (52.9% male, p = 0.799). Children who were exposed to smoke in utero at 18 weeks gestation were at increased risk of DLD at 10 years (OR = 2.56, CI = 1.23-5.35, p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: DLD is a relatively prevalent condition in Australian children, even when assessed in middle childhood years. These findings can inform future research priorities, and public health and educational policy which account for the associations with potential risk factors.

The reliability of video otoscopy recordings and still images in the asynchronous diagnosis of middle-ear disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the asynchronous assessment of video otoscopic still images to recordings by an audiologist and ear, nose and throat surgeon (ENT) for diagnostic reliability and agreement in identifying middle-ear disease. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional study, asynchronously assessing video otoscopy, tympanometry and case history (Dx1). A subset was re-diagnosed (Dx2). STUDY SAMPLE: Video otoscopy and data from 146 children recruited at two public community events; a sub-set of 47 were re-assessed. RESULTS: The intra-rater diagnostic agreement between Dx1 and Dx2 was moderate (k = 0.445-0.552) for the ENT surgeon, and almost-perfect (k = 0.928) for the audiologist, in both procedures. The agreement between the two procedures was substantial (k = 0.624) and moderate (k = 0.416) for the ENT surgeon in Dx1 and Dx2 respectively, and almost-perfect for the audiologist (k = 0.854-0.978) in both rounds. In Dx1, the inter-rater agreement between the clinicians was substantial using still images (k = 0.672) and moderate using recordings (k = 0.593); in Dx2 it was moderate using both procedures (k = 0.477-0.488). CONCLUSION: Both video otoscopic procedures, in addition to tympanometry and case history information, can be reliably used for asynchronous diagnosis of childhood middle-ear disease. An audiologist has a potential role in triaging children with middle-ear abnormalities and, therefore, improving access to ear-health services.

Otitis media guidelines for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: The 2001 Recommendations for clinical care guidelines on the management of otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Islander populations were revised in 2010. This 2020 update by the Centre of Research Excellence in Ear and Hearing Health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children used for the first time the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: We performed systematic reviews of evidence across prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and management. We report ten algorithms to guide diagnosis and clinical management of all forms of otitis media. The guidelines include 14 prevention and 37 treatment strategies addressing 191 questions. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINES: A GRADE approach is used. Targeted recommendations for both high and low risk children. New tympanostomy tube otorrhoea section. New Priority 5 for health services: annual and catch-up ear health checks for at-risk children. Antibiotics are strongly recommended for persistent otitis media with effusion in high risk children. Azithromycin is strongly recommended for acute otitis media where adherence is difficult or there is no access to refrigeration. Concurrent audiology and surgical referrals are recommended where delays are likely. Surgical referral is recommended for chronic suppurative otitis media at the time of diagnosis. The use of autoinflation devices is recommended for some children with persistent otitis media with effusion. Definitions for mild (21-30 dB) and moderate (> 30 dB) hearing impairment have been updated. New "OMapp" enables free fast access to the guidelines, plus images, animations, and multiple Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language audio translations to aid communication with families.

Whole-cell pertussis vaccine in early infancy for the prevention of allergy in children.

BACKGROUND: Atopic diseases are the most common chronic conditions of childhood. The apparent rise in food anaphylaxis in young children over the past three decades is of particular concern, owing to the lack of proven prevention strategies other than the timely introduction of peanut and egg. Due to reported in vitro differences in the immune response of young infants primed with whole-cell pertussis (wP) versus acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine, we systematically appraised and synthesised evidence on the safety and the potential allergy preventive benefits of wP, to inform recommendation for future practice and research. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of wP vaccinations in comparison to aP vaccinations in early infancy for the prevention of atopic diseases in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature. The date of the search was 7 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) that reported the occurrence of atopic diseases, and RCTs only to assess safety outcomes. To be included studies had to have at least six months follow-up, and involve children under 18 years old, who received a first dose of either wP (experimental intervention) or aP (comparator) before six months of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included: diagnosis of not vaccine-associated anaphylaxis or urticaria, diagnosis of asthma, diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and diagnosis of encephalopathy. Due to paucity of RCTs reporting on the atopic outcomes of interest, we assessed a broader outcome domain (cumulative incidence of atopic disease) as specified in our protocol. We summarised effect estimates as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled safety data in meta-analyses using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel methods, without zero-cell corrections for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four eligible studies reporting on atopic outcomes, representing 7333 children. Based on a single trial, there was uncertain evidence on whether wP vaccines affected the risk of overall atopic disease (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17) or asthma only (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.82; 497 children) by 2.5 years old.Three NRSIs were judged to be at serious or critical risk of bias due to confounding, missing data, or both, and were ineligible for inclusion in a narrative synthesis.  We identified 21 eligible studies (137,281 children) that reported the safety outcomes of interest. We judged seven studies to be at high risk of bias and those remaining, at unclear risk.  The pooled RR was 0.94 for all-cause SAEs (95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 15 studies, 38,072 children). For every 1000 children primed with a first dose of wP, 11 had an SAE. The corresponding risk with aP was 12 children (95% CI 9 to 13). The 95% CI around the risk difference ranged from three fewer to two more events per 1000 children, and the certainty of the evidence was judged as moderate (downgraded one level for imprecision). No diagnoses of encephalopathy following vaccination were reported (95% CI around the risk difference - 5 to 12 per 100,000 children; seven primary series studies; 115,271 children). The certainty of the evidence was judged as low, since this is a serious condition, and we could not exclude a clinically meaningful difference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-certainty evidence that a first dose of wP given early in infancy, compared to a first dose of aP, affects the risk of atopic diseases in children. The incidence of all-cause SAEs in wP and aP vaccinees was low, and no cases of encephalopathy were reported. The certainty of the evidence was judged as moderate for all-cause SAEs, and low for encephalopathy. Future studies should use sensitive and specific endpoints of clinical relevance, and should be conducted in settings with high prevalence of IgE-mediated food allergy. Safety endpoints should prioritise common vaccine reactions, parental acceptability, SAEs and their potential relatedness to the dose administered.

Systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media.

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Systemic antibiotics are a commonly used treatment option for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) against placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving patients with chronic (at least two weeks) ear discharge of unknown cause or due to CSOM. Other treatments were allowed if both treatment and control arms also received it. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not, measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks); health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (2135 participants) with unclear or high risk of bias. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge at between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 33 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. Ear pain and suspected ototoxicity were not reported. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Six studies were included of which five presented useable data. There may be little or no difference in the resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks for oral ciprofloxacin compared to placebo or no treatment when ciprofloxacin ear drops were used in both intervention arms (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence). No results after two weeks were reported. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received other background treatments) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus steroids as background treatment in both arms. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge between metronidazole and placebo at four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 40 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if resolution of ear discharge at six weeks was improved with co-trimoxazole compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 98 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ear discharge was not reported at other time points. From the narrative report there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms and found similar resolution of ear discharge between the amoxicillin and no treatment groups at three to four months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41; 136 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (both very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported. 4. Different types of systemic antibiotics This is a summary of four comparisons, where different antibiotics were compared to each other. Eight studies compared different types of systemic antibiotics against each other: quinolones against beta-lactams (four studies), lincosamides against nitroimidazoles (one study) and comparisons of different types of beta-lactams (three studies). It was not possible to conclude if there was one class or type of systemic antibiotic that was better in terms of resolution of ear discharge. The studies did not report adverse events well. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a limited amount of evidence available to examine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. When used alone (with or without aural toileting), we are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an effective intervention such as topical antibiotics, there seems to be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics and it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic may be more effective than another. Adverse effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the studies included. As we found very sparse evidence for their efficacy, the possibility of adverse events may detract from their use for CSOM.

Topical 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.

Teleaudiology hearing aid fitting follow-up consultations for adults: single blinded crossover randomised control trial and cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and quality of standard face-to-face and teleaudiology hearing aid fitting follow-up consultations and blended services for adult hearing aid users. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-six participants were randomly allocated to two equal groups, with equal numbers of new and experienced users. One standard and one teleaudiology follow-up consultation were delivered by an audiologist, the latter assisted by a facilitator. The order was reversed for the second group. Outcome measurement tools were applied to assess aspects of participants' communication, fitting (physical, sensorial), quality of life, and service. Cross-sectional and longitudinal outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Most participants presented with moderate, sloping, and symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The duration of teleaudiology (42.96 ± 2.73 min) was equivalent to face-to-face consultations (41.25 ± 2.61 min). All modes of service delivery significantly improved outcomes for communication, fitting, and quality of life (p > 0.05). Satisfaction for both consultation modes was high, although significantly greater with standard consultations. The mode and order of delivery of the consultations did not influence the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Teleaudiology hearing aid follow-up consultations can deliver significant improvements, and do not differ from standard consultations. Blended services also deliver significant improvements. Satisfaction can be negatively impacted by technical or human-related issues.

Aural toilet (ear cleaning) 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. Aural toileting is a term describing a number of processes for manually cleaning the ear. Techniques used may include dry mopping (with cotton wool or tissue paper), suction clearance (typically under a microscope) or irrigation (using manual or automated syringing). Dry mopping may be effective in removing mucopurulent discharge. Compared to irrigation or microsuction it is less effective in removing epithelial debris or thick pus. Aural toileting can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or topical antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of aural toilet procedures 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 people (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. We included any aural toileting method as the intervention, at any frequency and for any duration. The comparisons were aural toileting compared with a) placebo or no intervention, and b) any other aural toileting method. We analysed trials in which background treatments were used in both arms (e.g. topical antiseptics or topical antibiotics) separately. 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 were hearing, serious complications, and the adverse events of ear bleeding and dizziness/vertigo/balance problems. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 431 participants (465 ears), reporting on two comparisons. Two studies included only children with CSOM in the community (351 participants) and the other study (80 participants) included children and adults with chronic ear discharge for at least six weeks. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of health-related quality of life, ear pain or the adverse event of ear bleeding. Daily aural toileting (dry mopping) versus no treatment Two studies (351 children; 370 ears) compared daily dry mopping with no treatment. Neither study presented results for resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks or between two to four weeks. For resolution of ear discharge after four weeks, one study reported the results per person. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference at 16 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.72; 1 study; 217 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. No results were reported for the adverse events of dizziness, vertigo or balance problems. Only one study 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 reported hearing, but the results were presented by treatment outcome rather than by treatment group so it is not possible to determine whether there is a difference between the two groups. Daily aural toileting versus single aural toileting on top of topical ciprofloxacin One study (80 participants; 95 ears) compared daily aural toileting (suction) with administration of topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) ear drops in a clinic, to a single aural toileting (suction) episode followed by daily self-administered topical antibiotic drops, in participants of all ages. We are unsure whether there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 1 study; 80 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge at between two to four weeks. The results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were presented by ear, not person, and could not be adjusted to by person. One patient in the group with single aural toileting and self administration of topical antibiotic ear drops reported the adverse event of dizziness, which the authors attributed to the use of cold topical ciprofloxacin. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.95; 1 study; 80 participants, very low-certainty). No results were reported for the other adverse events of vertigo or balance problems, or for serious complications. The authors only reported qualitatively that there was no difference between the two groups in hearing results (very low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether or not treatment with aural toileting is effective in resolving ear discharge in people with CSOM, due to a lack of data and the poor quality of the available evidence. We also remain uncertain about other outcomes, including adverse events, as these were not well reported. Similarly, we are very uncertain whether daily suction clearance, followed by antibiotic ear drops administered at a clinic, is better than a single episode of suction clearance followed by self-administration of topical antibiotic ear drops.

Topical antibiotics with steroids for chronic suppurative otitis media.

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as steroids, antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in combined preparations with steroids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of adding a topical steroid to topical antibiotics in the treatment of people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any combination of a topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class and a topical corticosteroid (steroid) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic and steroid compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies addressing 11 treatment comparisons. A total of 1901 participants were included, with one study (40 ears) not reporting the number of participants recruited, which we therefore could not account for. No studies reported health-related quality of life. The main comparisons were: 1. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus placebo or no treatment Three studies (210 participants) compared a topical antibiotic-steroid to saline or no treatment. Resolution of discharge was not reported at between one to two weeks. One study (50 'high-risk' children) reported results at more than four weeks by ear and we could not adjust the results to by person. The study reported that 58% (of 41 ears) resolved with topical antibiotics compared with 50% (of 26 ears) with no treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (123 participants) noted minor side effects in 16% of participants in both the intervention and placebo groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (123 participants) reported no change in bone-conduction hearing thresholds and reported no difference in tinnitus or balance problems between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (50 participants) reported serious complications, but it was not clear which group these patients were from, or whether the complications occurred pre- or post-treatment. One study (123 participants) reported that no side effects occurred in any participants (very low-certainty evidence). 2. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus topical antibiotics (same antibiotics) only Four studies (475 participants) were included in this comparison. Three studies (340 participants) compared topical antibiotic-steroid combinations to topical antibiotics alone. The evidence suggests little or no difference in resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 82.7% versus 76.6% (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.21; 335 participants; 3 studies (4 study arms); low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of discharge after four weeks were reported. One study (110 participants) reported local itchiness but as there was only one episode in each group it is uncertain whether there is a difference (very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (395 participants) investigated suspected ototoxicity but it was not possible to determine whether there were differences between the groups for this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported serious complications. 3. Topical antibiotics with steroids compared to topical antibiotics alone (different antibiotics) Nine studies (981 participants plus 40 ears) evaluated a range of comparisons of topical non-quinolone antibiotic-steroid combinations versus topical quinolone antibiotics alone. Resolution of discharge may be greater with quinolone topical antibiotics alone at between one to two weeks compared with non-quinolone topical antibiotics with steroids: 82.1% versus 63.2% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 7 studies; 903 participants, low-certainty evidence). Results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were not reported. One study (52 participants) reported usable data on ear pain, two studies (419 participants) reported hearing outcomes and one study (52 participants) reported balance problems. It was not possible to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups for these outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (149 participants) reported no serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics with steroids in improving the resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-certainty evidence available. Amongst this uncertainty, we found no evidence that the addition of steroids to topical antibiotics affects the resolution of ear discharge. There is also low-certainty evidence that some types of topical antibiotics (without steroids) may be better than topical antibiotic/steroid combinations in improving resolution of discharge. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.

Topical antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media.

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics, the most common treatment for CSOM, act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical antibiotics (without steroids) for people with CSOM. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic (e.g. topical antibiotic A versus topical antibiotic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of participants had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with a total of 2198 participants. Twelve studies reported the sample size in terms of participants (not ears); these had a total of 1797 participants. The remaining five studies reported both the number of participants and ears, representing 401 participants, or 510 ears. A: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with aural toilet in both arms and no other background treatment) One small study compared a topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) with placebo (saline). All participants received aural toilet. Although ciprofloxacin was better than saline in terms of resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 84% versus 12% (risk ratio (RR) 6.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 24.99; 35 participants, very low-certainty evidence), the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other. The study authors reported that "no medical side-effects and worsening of audiological measurements related to this topical medication were detected" (very low-certainty evidence). B: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with use of oral antibiotics in both arms) Four studies compared topical ciprofloxacin to no treatment (three studies; 190 participants) or topical ceftizoxime to no treatment (one study; 248 participants). In each study all participants received the same antibiotic systemically (oral ciprofloxacin, injected ceftizoxime). In at least one study all participants received aural toilet. Useable data were only available from the first three studies; ciprofloxacin was better than no treatment, resolution of discharge occurring in 88.2% versus 60% at one to two weeks (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.80; 2 studies, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported ear pain or discomfort/local irritation. C: Comparisons of different topical antibiotics The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in these comparisons is very low. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides Seven studies compared an aminoglycoside (gentamicin, neomycin or tobramycin) with ciprofloxacin (734 participants) or ofloxacin (214 participants). Whilst resolution of discharge at one to two weeks was higher in the quinolones group the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.29; 6 studies, 694 participants). One study measured ear pain and reported no difference between the groups. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides/polymyxin B combination ±gramicidin We identified three studies but data on our primary outcome were only available in one study. Comparing ciprofloxacin to a neomycin/polymyxin B/gramicidin combination, for an unknown treatment duration (likely four weeks), ciprofloxacin was better (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, 186 participants). A "few" patients experienced local irritation upon the first instillation of topical treatment (numbers/groups not stated). Others Other studies examined topical gentamicin versus a trimethoprim/sulphacetamide/polymixin B combination (91 participants) and rifampicin versus chloramphenicol (160 participants). Limited data were available and the findings were very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics in improving resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-quality evidence available. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the use of topical antibiotics may be effective when compared to placebo, or when used in addition to a systemic antibiotic. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.

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 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. Topical antiseptics, one of the possible treatments for CSOM, inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antiseptics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antiseptics or their application can cause irritation of the skin of the outer ear, manifesting as discomfort, pain or itching. Some antiseptics (such as alcohol) may have the potential to be toxic to the inner ear (ototoxicity), with a possible increased risk of causing sensorineural hearing loss, dizziness or tinnitus. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media. 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 the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. Two main comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) placebo or no intervention; and b) another topical antiseptic (e.g. topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of patients had received topical antiseptics a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of antibiotic treatment. 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: Five studies were included. It was not possible to calculate the total number of participants as two studies only provided the number of ears included in the study. A. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus placebo or no treatment (all patients had aural toileting) Three studies compared topical antiseptics with no treatment, with one study reporting results we could use (254 children; cluster-RCT). This compared the instillation of boric acid in alcohol drops versus no ear drops for one month (both arms used daily dry mopping). We made adjustments to the data to account for the intra-cluster correlation. The very low certainty of the evidence means it is uncertain whether or not treatment with an antiseptic leads to an increase in resolution of ear discharge at both four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.16; 174 participants) and at three to four months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47; 180 participants). This study narratively described no differences in suspected ototoxicity or hearing outcomes between the arms (very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported results for health-related quality of life, adverse effects or serious complications. B. Topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B Two studies compared different antiseptics but only one (93 participants), comparing a single instillation of boric acid powder with daily acetic acid ear drops, provided any information for this comparison. The very low certainty of the evidence means that it is uncertain whether more patients had resolution of ear discharge with boric acid powder compared to acetic acid at four weeks (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.53; 93 participants), or whether there was a difference between the arms with respect to ear discomfort due to the low number of reported events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.81; 93 participants). Narratively, the study reported no difference in hearing outcomes between the groups. None of the included studies reported any of the other primary or secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to paucity of the evidence and the very low certainty of that which is available the effectiveness and safety profile of antiseptics in the treatment of CSOM is uncertain.