Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

BACKGROUND: Ear wax (cerumen) is a normal bodily secretion that can become a problem when it obstructs the ear canal. Symptoms attributed to wax (such as deafness and pain) are among the commonest reasons for patients to present to primary care with ear trouble.Wax is part of the ear's self-cleaning mechanism and is usually naturally expelled from the ear canal without causing problems. When this mechanism fails, wax is retained in the canal and may become impacted; interventions to encourage its removal may then be needed. Application of ear drops is one of these methods. Liquids used to remove and soften wax are of several kinds: oil-based compounds (e.g. olive or almond oil); water-based compounds (e.g. sodium bicarbonate or water itself); a combination of the above or non-water, non-oil-based solutions, such as carbamide peroxide (a hydrogen peroxide-urea compound) and glycerol. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ear drops (or sprays) to remove or aid the removal of ear wax in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 23 March 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a 'cerumenolytic' was compared with no treatment, water or saline, an alternative liquid treatment (oil or almond oil) or another 'cerumenolytic' in adults or children with obstructing or impacted ear wax. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax and 2) adverse effects (discomfort, irritation or pain). Secondary outcomes were: extent of wax clearance; proportion of people (or ears) with relief of symptoms due to wax; proportion of people (or ears) requiring further intervention to remove wax; success of mechanical removal of residual wax following treatment; any other adverse effects recorded and cost. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies, with 623 participants (900 ears). Interventions included: oil-based treatments (triethanolamine polypeptide, almond oil, benzocaine, chlorobutanol), water-based treatments (docusate sodium, carbamide peroxide, phenazone, choline salicylate, urea peroxide, potassium carbonate), other active comparators (e.g. saline or water alone) and no treatment. Nine of the studies were more than 15 years old.The overall risk of bias across the 10 included studies was low or unclear. PRIMARY OUTCOME: proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear waxSix studies (360 participants; 491 ears) contributed quantitative data and were included in our meta-analyses.Active treatment versus no treatmentOnly one study addressed this comparison. The proportion of ears with complete clearance of ear wax was higher in the active treatment group (22%) compared with the no treatment group (5%) after five days of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 4.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 16.80); one study; 117 ears; NNTB = 8) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment versus water or salineWe found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax when the active treatment group was compared to the water or saline group (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.75; three studies; 213 participants; 257 ears) (low-quality evidence). Two studies applied drops for five days, but one study only applied the drops for 15 minutes. When we excluded this study in a sensitivity analysis it did not change the result.Water or saline versus no treatmentThis comparison was only addressed in the single study cited above (active versus no treatment) and there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of ears with complete wax clearance when comparing water or saline with no treatment after five days of treatment (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 17.62; one study; 76 ears) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment A versus active treatment BSeveral single studies evaluated 'head-to-head' comparisons between two active treatments. We found no evidence to show that one was superior to any other.Subgroup analysis of oil-based active treatments versus non-oil based active treatmentsWe found no evidence of a difference in this outcome when oil-based treatments were compared with non-oil-based active treatments. PRIMARY OUTCOME: adverse effects: discomfort, irritation or painOnly seven studies planned to measure and did report this outcome. Only two (141 participants;176 ears) provided useable data. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the number of adverse effects between the types of ear drops in these two studies. We summarised the remaining five studies narratively. All events were mild and reported in fewer than 30 participants across the seven studies (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesThree studies reported 'other' adverse effects (how many studies planned to report these is unclear). The available information was limited and included occasional reports of dizziness, unpleasant smell, tinnitus and hearing loss. No significant differences between groups were reported. There were no emergencies or serious adverse effects reported in any of the 10 studies.There was very limited or no information available on our remaining secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although a number of studies aimed to evaluate whether or not one type of cerumenolytic is more effective than another, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain.A single study suggests that applying ear drops for five days may result in a greater likelihood of complete wax clearance than no treatment at all. However, we cannot conclude whether one type of active treatment is more effective than another and there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between oil-based and water-based active treatments.There is no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better or worse than commercially produced cerumenolytics. Equally, there is also no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better than no treatment.

Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

BACKGROUND: Problems attributed to the accumulation of wax (cerumen) are one of the most common reasons for people to present to their general practitioners with ear trouble (Sharp 1990). Treatment for this condition often involves use of a wax softening agent (cerumenolytic) in order to disperse the cerumen and reduce the need for syringing, or to facilitate syringing should it prove necessary, but there is no consensus on the effectiveness of the wide variety of cerumenolytics in use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of ear drops (cerumenolytics) for the removal of symptomatic ear wax. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2003), and MEDLINE and EMBASE up to March 2003. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified all randomised controlled trials (with or without blinding) in which a cerumenolytic was evaluated in comparison with either no treatment, a placebo, or other cerumenolytics in participants with hard or impacted ear wax, and in which the proportion of participants with sufficient clearance of the external canal to make further mechanical clearance unnecessary (primary outcome measure) was stated or calculable. The full text articles of all the retrieved trials of possible relevance were reviewed by the two reviewers and the inclusion criteria applied independently. Any differences in opinion about which studies to include in the review were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were graded for methodological quality using the Cochrane approach. Data extraction was performed in a standardised manner by one reviewer and rechecked by the other reviewer, and where necessary investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor considered appropriate because of the heterogeneity of the treatments, treatment amounts and durations, trial procedures, and scoring systems. A narrative overview of the results is therefore presented. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials satisfied the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were of poor quality. In all, 587 participants received one of nine different cerumenolytics. One trial compared active treatments with no treatment, two trials compared active treatments with water or a saline 'placebo', and all eight trials placed two or more active treatments in head-to-head comparisons. Seven trials included syringing as a secondary treatment where necessary.Overall, results were inconclusive. One trial found a significant difference between one of three active agents (Cerumol) in comparison to no treatment, but no statistically significant difference was found between these three agents (sodium bicarbonate ear drops; Cerumol; sterile water). In two trials no statistical difference was found between the effectiveness of either sodium bicarbonate ear drops, Cerumol, Cerumenex or Colace versus a sterile water or saline 'placebo'. Three trials (from the same source) found statistically significant differences in favour of the same active agent (Exterol) in comparison to glycerol and Cerumol. Three trials found no statistically significant difference between two or more cerumenolytics (Otocerol versus Cerumol; Audax versus Earex; sodium bicarbonate ear drops versus Cerumol). Two trials comparing the same two cerumenolytics (Cerumenex versus Colace) also failed to show any significant benefit of one over the other. No serious adverse effects were reported from any of the interventions. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Trials to date have been heterogeneous and of poor quality, making it difficult to offer any definitive recommendations on the effectiveness of cerumenolytics for the removal of symptomatic ear wax. Future trials should be of high methodological quality, have large sample sizes, and compare both oil-based and water-based solvents with placebo and/or no treatment.

A single-blind, randomized study to compare the efficacy of two ear drop preparations ('Audax' and 'Cerumol') in the softening of ear wax.

A parallel group, single-blind, randomized study was carried out in a general practice to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of two ear drop preparations ('Audax' and 'Cerumol') in the softening of ear wax in 50 adult patients with impacted or hardened ear wax. Assessments were made on entry of the amount, colour and consistency of the ear wax, symptoms, and objective hearing. Patients were then allocated at random to receive one or other preparation and instructed to use the drops, morning and evening, for 4 days after which they were reassessed. Details were recorded of any side-effects or discomfort caused by the study medication and both physician and patients were asked to give their overall opinion of treatment efficacy. Both treatments were shown to be effective in the softening of ear wax and were well tolerated, there being no significant difference between the two groups in these parameters. However, patients who had abnormal hearing before treatment had a significantly greater improvement in objective hearing after treatment with 'Audax' ear drops compared to those patients treated with 'Cerumol' ear drops. There were no between-treatment differences in either either the physician's or patient's overall assessments of effectiveness.