Autoinflation 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. When persistent, it may lead to behavioural problems and a delay in expressive language skills. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, medical, surgical and mechanical treatment. Autoinflation is a self-administered technique, which aims to ventilate the middle ear and encourage middle ear fluid clearance by providing a positive pressure of air in the nose and nasopharynx (using a nasal balloon or other handheld device). This positive pressure (sometimes combined with simultaneous swallow) encourages opening of the Eustachian tube and may help ventilate the middle ear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy (benefits and harms) of autoinflation for the treatment of otitis media with effusion in children. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 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 autoinflation with either watchful waiting (no treatment), non-surgical treatment or ventilation tubes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise and were: 1) hearing, 2) OME-specific quality of life and 3) pain and distress. Secondary outcomes were: 1) persistence of OME, 2) other adverse effects (including eardrum perforation), 3) compliance or adherence to treatment, 4) receptive language skills, 5) speech development, 6) cognitive development, 7) psychosocial skills, 8) listening skills, 9) generic health-related quality of life, 10) parental stress, 11) vestibular function and 12) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. 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 identified 11 completed studies that met our inclusion criteria (1036 participants). The majority of studies included children aged between 3 and 11 years. Most were carried out in Europe or North America, and they were conducted in both hospital and community settings. All compared autoinflation (using a variety of different methods and devices) to no treatment. Most studies required children to carry out autoinflation two to three times per day, for between 2 and 12 weeks. The outcomes were predominantly assessed just after the treatment phase had been completed. Here we report the effects at the longest follow-up for our main outcome measures. Return to normal hearing The evidence was very uncertain regarding the effect of autoinflation on the return to normal hearing. The longest duration of follow-up was 11 weeks. At this time point, the risk ratio was 2.67 in favour of autoinflation (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 4.12; 85% versus 32%; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 2; 1 study, 94 participants), but the certainty of the evidence was very low. Disease-specific quality of life Autoinflation may result in a moderate improvement in quality of life (related to otitis media) after short-term follow-up. One study assessed quality of life using the Otitis Media Questionnaire-14 (OMQ-14) at three months of follow-up. Results were reported as the number of standard deviations above or below zero difference, with a range from -3 (better) to +3 (worse). The mean difference was -0.42 lower (better) for those who received autoinflation (95% CI -0.62 to -0.22; 1 study, 247 participants; low-certainty evidence; the authors report a change of 0.3 as clinically meaningful). Pain and distress caused by the procedure Autoinflation may result in an increased risk of ear pain, but the evidence was very uncertain. One study assessed this outcome, and identified a risk ratio of 3.50 for otalgia in those who received autoinflation, although the overall occurrence of pain was low (95% CI 0.74 to 16.59; 4.4% versus 1.3%; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 32; 1 study, 320 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Persistence of OME The evidence suggests that autoinflation may slightly reduce the persistence of OME at three months. Four studies were included, and the risk ratio for persistence of OME was 0.88 for those receiving autoinflation (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; 4 studies, 483 participants; absolute reduction of 89 people per 1000 with persistent OME; NNTB 12; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All the evidence we identified was of low or very low certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the estimated effects. However, the data suggest that autoinflation may have a beneficial effect on OME-specific quality of life and persistence of OME in the short term, but the effect is uncertain for return to normal hearing and adverse effects. The potential benefits should be weighed against the inconvenience of regularly carrying out autoinflation, and the possible risk of ear pain.

Adenoidectomy 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. When persistent, it may lead to developmental delay, social difficulty and poor quality of life. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, autoinflation, medical and surgical treatment. Adenoidectomy has often been used as a potential treatment for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of adenoidectomy, either alone or in combination with ventilation tubes (grommets), for OME in children. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 20 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared adenoidectomy (alone, or in combination with ventilation tubes) with either no treatment or non-surgical treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes (determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise): 1) hearing, 2) otitis media-specific quality of life, 3) haemorrhage. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 1) persistence of OME, 2) adverse effects, 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial skills, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function, 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. 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 10 studies (1785 children). Many of the studies used concomitant interventions for all participants, including insertion of ventilation tubes or myringotomy. All included studies had at least some concerns regarding the risk of bias. We report results for our main outcome measures at the longest available follow-up. We did not identify any data on disease-specific quality of life for any of the comparisons. Further details of additional outcomes and time points are reported in the review. 1) Adenoidectomy (with or without myringotomy) versus no treatment/watchful waiting (three studies) After 12 months there was little difference in the proportion of children whose hearing had returned to normal, but the evidence was very uncertain (adenoidectomy 68%, no treatment 70%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.46; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50; 1 study, 42 participants). There is a risk of haemorrhage from adenoidectomy, but the absolute risk appears small (1/251 receiving adenoidectomy compared to 0/229, Peto odds ratio (OR) 6.77, 95% CI 0.13 to 342.54; 1 study, 480 participants; moderate certainty evidence). The risk of persistent OME may be slightly lower after two years in those receiving adenoidectomy (65% versus 73%), but again the difference was small (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; NNTB 13; 3 studies, 354 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 2) Adenoidectomy (with or without myringotomy) versus non-surgical treatment No studies were identified for this comparison. 3) Adenoidectomy and bilateral ventilation tubes versus bilateral ventilation tubes (four studies) There was a slight increase in the proportion of ears with a return to normal hearing after six to nine months (57% adenoidectomy versus 42% without, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.89; NNTB 7; 1 study, 127 participants (213 ears); very low-certainty evidence). Adenoidectomy may give an increased risk of haemorrhage, but the absolute risk appears small, and the evidence was uncertain (2/416 with adenoidectomy compared to 0/375 in the control group, Peto OR 6.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 107.18; 2 studies, 791 participants). The risk of persistent OME was similar for both groups (82% adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes compared to 85% ventilation tubes alone, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07; very low-certainty evidence). 4) Adenoidectomy and unilateral ventilation tube versus unilateral ventilation tube (two studies) Slightly more children returned to normal hearing after adenoidectomy, but the confidence intervals were wide (57% versus 46%, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.96; NNTB 9; 1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fewer children may have persistent OME after 12 months, but again the confidence intervals were wide (27.2% compared to 40.5%, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.29; NNTB 8; 1 study, 74 participants). We did not identify any data on haemorrhage. 5) Adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes versus no treatment/watchful waiting (two studies) We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, after two years, the mean difference in hearing threshold for those allocated to adenoidectomy was -3.40 dB (95% CI -5.54 to -1.26; 1 study, 211 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a small reduction in the proportion of children with persistent OME after two years, but the evidence was very uncertain (82% compared to 90%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; NNTB 13; 1 study, 232 participants). We noted that many children in the watchful waiting group had also received surgery by this time point. 6) Adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes versus non-surgical treatment No studies were identified for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When assessed with the GRADE approach, the evidence for adenoidectomy in children with OME is very uncertain. Adenoidectomy may reduce the persistence of OME, although evidence about the effect of this on hearing is unclear. For patients and carers, a return to normal hearing is likely to be important, but few studies measured this outcome. We did not identify any evidence on disease-specific quality of life. There were few data on adverse effects, in particular postoperative bleeding. The risk of haemorrhage appears to be small, but should be considered when choosing a treatment strategy for children with OME. Future studies should aim to determine which children are most likely to benefit from treatment, rather than offering interventions to all children.

Antibiotics 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. When persistent, it may lead to developmental delay, social difficulty and poor quality of life. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, autoinflation, medical and surgical treatment. Antibiotics are sometimes used to treat any bacteria present in the effusion, or associated biofilms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of oral antibiotics for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies to 20 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared oral antibiotics with either placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise and were: 1) hearing, 2) otitis media-specific quality of life and 3) anaphylaxis. Secondary outcomes were: 1) persistence of OME, 2) adverse effects, 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial skills, 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 for each outcome. 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 identified 19 completed studies that met our inclusion criteria (2581 participants). They assessed a variety of oral antibiotics (including penicillins, cephalosporins, macrolides and trimethoprim), with most studies using a 10- to 14-day treatment course. We had some concerns about the risk of bias in all studies included in this review. Here we report our primary outcomes and main secondary outcome, at the longest reported follow-up time. Antibiotics versus placebo We included 11 studies for this comparison, but none reported all of our outcomes of interest and limited meta-analysis was possible. Hearing One study found that more children may return to normal hearing by two months (resolution of the air-bone gap) after receiving antibiotics as compared with placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 9.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51 to 26.18; 20/49 children who received antibiotics returned to normal hearing versus 0/37 who received placebo; 1 study, 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Disease-specific quality of life No studies assessed this outcome. Presence/persistence of OME At 6 to 12 months of follow-up, the use of antibiotics compared with placebo may slightly reduce the number of children with persistent OME, but the confidence intervals were wide, and the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.17; 48% versus 54%; number needed to treat (NNT) 17; 2 studies, 324 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse event: anaphylaxis No studies provided specific data on anaphylaxis. Three of the included studies (448 children) did report adverse events in sufficient detail to assume that no anaphylactic reactions occurred, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics versus no treatment We included eight studies for this comparison, but very limited meta-analysis was possible. Hearing One study found that the use of antibiotics compared to no treatment may result in little to no difference in final hearing threshold at three months (mean difference (MD) -5.38 dB HL, 95% CI -9.12 to -1.64; 1 study, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence). The only data identified on the return to normal hearing were reported at 10 days of follow-up, which we considered to be too short to accurately reflect the efficacy of antibiotics. Disease-specific quality of life No studies assessed this outcome. Presence/persistence of OME Antibiotics may reduce the proportion of children who have persistent OME at up to three months of follow-up, when compared with no treatment (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.80; 6 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse event: anaphylaxis No studies provided specific data on anaphylaxis. Two of the included studies (180 children) did report adverse events in sufficient detail to assume that no anaphylactic reactions occurred, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use of antibiotics for OME is of low to very low certainty. Although the use of antibiotics compared to no treatment may have a slight beneficial effect on the resolution of OME at up to three months, the overall impact on hearing is very uncertain. The long-term effects of antibiotics are unclear and few of the studies included in this review reported on potential harms. These important endpoints should be considered when weighing up the potential short- and long-term benefits and harms of antibiotic treatment in a condition with a high spontaneous resolution rate.

Ventilation tubes (grommets) 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. It may cause hearing loss which, when persistent, may lead to developmental delay, social difficulty and poor quality of life. Management includes watchful waiting, autoinflation, medical and surgical treatment. Insertion of ventilation tubes has often been used as the preferred treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of ventilation tubes (grommets) 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 trials on 20 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in children (6 months to 12 years) with OME for ≥ 3 months. We included studies that compared ventilation tube (VT) insertion with five comparators: no treatment, watchful waiting (ventilation tubes inserted later, if required), myringotomy, hearing aids and other non-surgical treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise and were: 1) hearing; 2) OME-specific quality of life; 3) persistent tympanic membrane perforation (as a severe adverse effect of the surgery). Secondary outcomes were: 1) persistence of OME; 2) other adverse effects (including tympanosclerosis, VT blockage and pain); 3) receptive language skills; 4) speech development; 5) cognitive development; 6) psychosocial skills; 7) listening skills; 8) generic health-related quality of life; 9) parental stress; 10) vestibular function; 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for key outcomes. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (2888 children). We considered most of the evidence to be very uncertain, due to wide confidence intervals for the effect estimates, few participants, and a risk of performance and detection bias. Here we report our key outcomes at the longest reported follow-up. There were some limitations to the evidence. No studies investigated the comparison of ventilation tubes versus hearing aids. We did not identify any data on disease-specific quality of life; however, many studies were conducted before the development of specific tools to assess this in otitis media. Short-acting ventilation tubes were used in most studies and thus specific data on the use of long-acting VTs is limited. Finally, we did not identify specific data on the effects of VTs in children at increased risk of OME (e.g. with craniofacial syndromes). Ventilation tubes versus no treatment (four studies) The odds ratio (OR) for a return to normal hearing after 12 months was 1.13 with VTs (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 2.74; 54% versus 51%; 1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At six months, VTs may lead to a large reduction in persistent OME (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.65; 20.4% versus 68.0%; 1 study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the chance of persistent tympanic membrane perforation with VTs at 12 months (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.91; 8.3% versus 9.7%; 1 RCT, 144 participants). Early ventilation tubes versus watchful waiting (six studies) There was little to no difference in the proportion of children whose hearing returned to normal after 8 to 10 years (i.e. by the age of 9 to 13 years) (RR for VTs 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 93% versus 95%; 1 study, 391 participants; very low-certainty evidence). VTs may also result in little to no difference in the risk of persistent OME after 18 months to 6 years (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.74; 15% versus 12%; 3 studies, 584 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool data on persistent perforation. One study showed that VTs may increase the risk of perforation after a follow-up duration of 3.75 years (RR 3.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 32.38; 1 study, 391 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the actual number of children who develop persistent perforation may be low, as demonstrated by another study (1.26%; 1 study, 635 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Ventilation tubes versus non-surgical treatment (one study) One study compared VTs to six months of antibiotics (sulphisoxazole). No data were available on return to normal hearing, but final hearing thresholds were reported. At four months, the mean difference was -5.98 dB HL lower (better) for those receiving VTs, but the evidence is very uncertain (95% CI -9.21 to -2.75; 1 study, 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence was identified regarding persistent OME. VTs may result in a low risk of persistent perforation at 18 months of follow-up (no events reported; narrative synthesis of 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilation tubes versus myringotomy (nine studies) We are uncertain whether VTs may slightly increase the likelihood of returning to normal hearing at 6 to 12 months, since the confidence intervals were wide and included the possibility of no effect (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.53; 74% versus 64%; 2 studies, 132 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After six months, persistent OME may be reduced for those who receive VTs compared to laser myringotomy, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.38; 1 study, 272 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At six months, the risk of persistent perforation is probably similar with the use of VTs or laser myringotomy (narrative synthesis of 6 studies, 581 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There may be small short- and medium-term improvements in hearing and persistence of OME with VTs, but it is unclear whether these persist after longer follow-up. The RCTs included do not allow us to say when (or how much) VTs improve hearing in any specific child. However, interpretation of the evidence is difficult: many children in the control groups recover spontaneously or receive VTs during follow-up, VTs may block or extrude, and OME may recur. The limited evidence in this review also affects the generalisability/applicability of our findings to situations involving children with underlying conditions (e.g. craniofacial syndromes) or the use of long-acting tubes. Consequently, RCTs may not be the best way to determine whether an intervention is likely to be effective in any individual child. Instead, we must better understand the different OME phenotypes to target interventions to children who will benefit most, and avoid over-treating when spontaneous resolution is likely.

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.

Positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. It is often treated with medication, but different interventions are sometimes used. Positive pressure therapy is a treatment that creates small pressure pulses, generated by a pump that is attached to tubing placed in the ear canal. It is typically used for a few minutes, several times per day. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of positive pressure therapy versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing positive pressure therapy with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 238 participants, all of which compared positive pressure using the Meniett device to sham treatment. The duration of follow-up was a maximum of four months.  Improvement in vertigo A single study assessed whether participants had an improvement in the frequency of their vertigo whilst using positive pressure therapy, therefore we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the results.  Change in vertigo Only one study reported on the change in vertigo symptoms using a global score (at 3 to < 6 months), so we are again unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. All three studies reported on the change in the frequency of vertigo. The summary effect showed that people receiving positive pressure therapy had, on average, 0.84 fewer days per month affected by vertigo (95% confidence interval from 2.12 days fewer to 0.45 days more; 3 studies; 202 participants). However, the evidence on the change in vertigo frequency was of very low certainty, therefore there is great uncertainty in this estimate.   Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the number of people who experienced serious adverse events. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or whether they were not assessed and reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare this intervention to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Surgical interventions for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. First-line treatments often involve dietary or lifestyle changes, medication or local (intratympanic) treatments. However, surgery may also be considered for people with persistent or severe symptoms. The efficacy of different surgical interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing ventilation tubes, endolymphatic sac surgery, semi-circular canal plugging/obliteration, vestibular nerve section or labyrinthectomy with either placebo (sham surgery) or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with a total of 178 participants. One evaluated ventilation tubes compared to no treatment, the other evaluated endolymphatic sac decompression compared to sham surgery.  Ventilation tubes We included a single RCT of 148 participants with definite Ménière's disease. It was conducted in a single centre in Japan from 2010 to 2013. Participants either received ventilation tubes with standard medical treatment, or standard medical treatment alone, and were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the number of participants in whom vertigo resolved, and the effect of the intervention on hearing. Our other primary and secondary outcomes were not reported in this study. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Endolymphatic sac decompression We also included one RCT of 30 participants that compared endolymphatic sac decompression with sham surgery. This was a single-centre study conducted in Denmark during the 1980s. Follow-up was predominantly conducted at one year, but additional follow-up continued for up to nine years in some participants. Some data were reported on hearing and vertigo (both improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo), but our other outcomes of interest were not reported. Again, this is a single, very small study and we rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. We are therefore unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to draw clear conclusions about the efficacy of these surgical interventions for Ménière's disease. We identified evidence for only two of our five proposed comparisons, and we assessed all the evidence as low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Many of the outcomes that we planned to assess were not reported by the studies, such as the impact on quality of life, and adverse effects of the interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used in the management of this condition, including betahistine, diuretics, antiviral medications and corticosteroids. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these treatments may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing betahistine, diuretics, antihistamines, antivirals or systemic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 848 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: betahistine, diuretics, antivirals and corticosteroids. We did not identify any evidence on antihistamines.  Betahistine Seven RCTs (548 participants) addressed this comparison. However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes as not all outcomes were considered by every study, and studies that did report the same outcome used different time points for follow-up, or assessed the outcome using different methods. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Some data were available for each of our primary outcomes, but the evidence was low- or very low-certainty throughout. One study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' at 6 to ≤ 12 months, and another study reported this outcome at > 12 months. Four studies reported on the change in vertigo, but again all used different methods of assessment (vertigo frequency, or a global score of vertigo severity) or different time points. A single study reported on serious adverse events.  Diuretics Two RCTs addressed this comparison. One considered the use of isosorbide (220 participants), and the other used a combination of amiloride hydrochloride and hydrochlorothiazide (80 participants). Again, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes, as only one study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' (at 6 to ≤ 12 months), one study reported on change in vertigo (at 3 to < 6 months) and neither study assessed serious adverse events. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. The evidence was all very low-certainty.  Other pharmacological interventions We also identified one study that assessed antivirals (24 participants), and one study that assessed corticosteroids (16 participants). The evidence for these interventions was all very low-certainty. Again, serious adverse events were not considered by either study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare these interventions to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Intratympanic gentamicin for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Aminoglycosides are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition. The aim of this treatment is to partially or completely destroy the balance function of the affected ear. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic aminoglycosides versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic aminoglycosides with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 137 participants. All studies compared the use of gentamicin to either placebo or no treatment. Due to the very small numbers of participants in these trials, and concerns over the conduct and reporting of some studies, we considered all the evidence in this review to be very low-certainty.  Improvement in vertigo This outcome was assessed by only two studies, and they used different time periods for reporting. Improvement in vertigo was reported by more participants who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (16/16 participants who received gentamicin, compared to 0/16 participants with no intervention; risk ratio (RR) 33.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 507; 1 study; 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and at > 12 months follow-up (12/12 participants receiving gentamicin, compared to 6/10 participants receiving placebo; RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.69; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome, the certainty of the evidence was very low and we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the results.  Change in vertigo Again, two studies assessed this outcome, but used different methods of measuring vertigo and assessed the outcome at different time points. We were therefore unable to carry out any meta-analysis or draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Global scores of vertigo were lower for those who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (mean difference (MD) -1 point, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.32; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence; four-point scale; minimally clinically important difference presumed to be one point) and at > 12 months (MD -1.8 points, 95% CI -2.49 to -1.11; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Vertigo frequency was also lower at > 12 months for those who received gentamicin (0 attacks per year in participants receiving gentamicin compared to 11 attacks per year for those receiving placebo; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the total number of participants who experienced a serious adverse event. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or because they were not assessed or reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use of intratympanic gentamicin in the treatment of Ménière's disease is very uncertain. This is primarily due to the fact that there are few published RCTs in this area, and all the studies we identified enrolled a very small number of participants. As the studies assessed different outcomes, using different methods, and reported at different time points, we were not able to pool the results to obtain more reliable estimates of the efficacy of this treatment. More people may report an improvement in vertigo following gentamicin treatment, and scores of vertigo symptoms may also improve. However, the limitations of the evidence mean that we cannot be sure of these effects. Although there is the potential for intratympanic gentamicin to cause harm (for example, hearing loss) we did not find any information about the risks of treatment in this review.  Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Intratympanic corticosteroids for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Corticosteroids are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition (through the tympanic membrane). The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic corticosteroids versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects (including tympanic membrane perforation). We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 952 participants. All studies used the corticosteroid dexamethasone, with doses ranging from approximately 2 mg to 12 mg.  Improvement in vertigo Intratympanic corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the number of people who report an improvement in their vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 96.8%, placebo 96.6%, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.10; 2 studies; 60 participants; low-certainty evidence) or at more than 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 100%, placebo 96.3%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.23; 2 studies; 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we note the large improvement in the placebo group for these trials, which causes challenges in interpreting these results.  Change in vertigo Assessed with a global score One study (44 participants) assessed the change in vertigo at 3 to < 6 months using a global score, which considered the frequency, duration and severity of vertigo. This is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Assessed by frequency of vertigo Three studies (304 participants) assessed the change in frequency of vertigo episodes at 3 to < 6 months. Intratympanic corticosteroids may slightly reduce the frequency of vertigo episodes. The proportion of days affected by vertigo was 0.05 lower (absolute difference -5%) in those receiving intratympanic corticosteroids (95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 3 studies; 472 participants; low-certainty evidence). This is equivalent to a difference of approximately 1.5 days fewer per month affected by vertigo in the corticosteroid group (with the control group having vertigo on approximately 2.5 to 3.5 days per month at the end of follow-up, and those receiving corticosteroids having vertigo on approximately 1 to 2 days per month). However, this result should be interpreted with caution - we are aware of unpublished data at this time point in which corticosteroids failed to show a benefit over placebo. One study also assessed the change in frequency of vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months follow-up. However, this is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Therefore, we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Serious adverse events Four studies reported this outcome. There may be little or no effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events with intratympanic corticosteroids, but the evidence is very uncertain (intratympanic corticosteroids 3.0%, placebo 4.4%; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.85; 4 studies; 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for intratympanic corticosteroids in the treatment of Ménière's disease is uncertain. There are relatively few published RCTs, which all consider the same type of corticosteroid (dexamethasone). We also have concerns about publication bias in this area, with the identification of two large RCTs that remain unpublished. The evidence comparing intratympanic corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment is therefore all low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area, and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits. Finally, we would also highlight the responsibility that trialists have to ensure results are available, regardless of the outcome of their study.

Lifestyle and dietary interventions for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Lifestyle or dietary modifications (including reducing the amount of salt or caffeine in the diet) are sometimes suggested to be of benefit for this condition. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these interventions may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of lifestyle and dietary interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with Ménière's disease comparing any lifestyle or dietary intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, one related to diet, and the other related to fluid intake and sleep. In a Swedish study, 51 participants were randomised to receive 'specially processed cereals' or standard cereals. The specially processed cereals are thought to stimulate the production of anti-secretory factor - a protein that reduces inflammation and fluid secretion. Participants received the cereals for three months. The only outcome reported by this study was disease-specific health-related quality of life.  The second study was conducted in Japan. The participants (223) were randomised to receive abundant water intake (35 mL/kg/day), or to sleep in darkness (in an unlit room for six to seven hours per night), or to receive no intervention. The duration of follow-up was two years. The outcomes assessed were 'improvement in vertigo' and hearing.  As these studies considered different interventions we were unable to carry out any meta-analysis, and for almost all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for lifestyle or dietary interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. We did not identify any placebo-controlled RCTs for interventions that are frequently recommended for those with Ménière's disease, such as salt restriction or caffeine restriction. We identified only two RCTs that compared a lifestyle or dietary intervention to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Non-pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. These unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. Many of these interventions include dietary, lifestyle or behavioural changes, rather than medication.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing dietary modifications, sleep improvement techniques, vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal supplements, talking therapies, mind-body interventions or vestibular rehabilitation with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with a cross-over design, unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 3 months, 3 to < 6 months, > 6 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies in this review with a total of 319 participants. Each study addressed a different comparison and these are outlined below. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining comparisons of interest in this review.   Dietary interventions (probiotics) versus placebo We identified one study with 218 participants (85% female). The use of a probiotic supplement was compared to a placebo and participants were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the change in vertigo frequency and severity over the duration of the study. However, there were no data regarding improvement of vertigo or serious adverse events. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus no intervention One study compared CBT to no treatment in 61 participants (72% female). Participants were followed up for eight weeks. Data were reported on the change in vertigo over the course of the study, but no information was reported on the proportion of people whose vertigo improved, or on the occurrence of serious adverse events.  Vestibular rehabilitation versus no intervention The third study compared the use of vestibular rehabilitation to no treatment in a group of 40 participants (90% female) and participants were followed up for six months. Again, this study reported some data on change in the frequency of vertigo during the study, but no information on the proportion of participants who experienced an improvement in vertigo or the number who experienced serious adverse events.  We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results of these studies, as the data for each comparison of interest come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was low or very low.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence for non-pharmacological interventions that may be used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Only a limited number of interventions have been assessed by comparing them to no intervention or a placebo treatment, and the evidence from these studies is all of low or very low certainty. We are therefore unsure whether any of these interventions may be effective at reducing the symptoms of vestibular migraine and we are also unsure whether they have the potential to cause harm.

Pharmacological interventions for acute attacks of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. The unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, at the time of a vestibular migraine attack to help reduce the severity or resolve the symptoms. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions used to relieve acute attacks of vestibular migraine. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing triptans, ergot alkaloids, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, gepants (CGRP receptor antagonists), magnesium, paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with either placebo or no treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 2 hours, 2 to 12 hours, > 12 to 72 hours. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a total of 133 participants, both of which compared the use of triptans to placebo for an acute attack of vestibular migraine. One study was a parallel-group RCT (of 114 participants, 75% female). This compared the use of 10 mg rizatriptan to placebo. The second study was a smaller, cross-over RCT (of 19 participants, 70% female). This compared the use of 2.5 mg zolmitriptan to placebo.  Triptans may result in little or no difference in the proportion of people whose vertigo improves at up to two hours after taking the medication. However, the evidence was very uncertain (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.07; 2 studies; based on 262 attacks of vestibular migraine treated in 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any evidence on the change in vertigo using a continuous scale. Only one of the studies assessed serious adverse events. No events were noted in either group, but as the sample size was small we cannot be sure if there are risks associated with taking triptans for this condition (0/75 receiving triptans, 0/39 receiving placebo; 1 study; 114 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for interventions used to treat acute attacks of vestibular migraine is very sparse. We identified only two studies, both of which assessed the use of triptans. We rated all the evidence as very low-certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates and cannot be sure if triptans have any effect on the symptoms of vestibular migraine. Although we identified sparse information on potential harms of treatment in this review, the use of triptans for other conditions (such as headache migraine) is known to be associated with some adverse effects.  We did not identify any placebo-controlled randomised trials for other interventions that may be used for this condition. Further research is needed to identify whether any interventions help to improve the symptoms of vestibular migraine attacks and to determine if there are side effects associated with their use.

Non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).

BACKGROUND: Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared any non-pharmacological intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD, and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: Few randomised controlled trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of different treatments for PPPD compared to no treatment (or placebo). Of the few studies we identified, only one followed up participants for at least three months, therefore most were not eligible for inclusion in this review.  We identified one study from South Korea that compared the use of transcranial direct current stimulation to a sham procedure in 24 people with PPPD. This is a technique that involves electrical stimulation of the brain with a weak current, through electrodes that are placed onto the scalp. This study provided some information on the occurrence of adverse effects, and also on disease-specific quality of life at three months of follow-up. The other outcomes of interest in this review were not assessed. As this is a single, small study we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the numeric results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Further work is necessary to determine whether any non-pharmacological interventions may be effective for the treatment of PPPD and to assess whether they are associated with any potential harms. As this is a chronic disease, future trials should follow up participants for a sufficient period of time to assess whether there is a persisting impact on the severity of the disease, rather than only observing short-term effects.

Pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).

BACKGROUND: Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding pharmacological treatments - specifically SSRIs and SNRIs - for PPPD. Consequently, there is great uncertainty over the use of these treatments for this condition. Further work is needed to establish whether any treatments are effective at improving the symptoms of PPPD, and whether their use is associated with any adverse effects.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added.  OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin.  Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added. OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate.  Intranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo We included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at > 4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function).  Serious adverse effects The authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects.  Intranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo We included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function Intranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at > 4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study.  Data on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a cardinal symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the ongoing pandemic has resulted in a large number of affected individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to prevent persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Individuals who had symptoms for less than four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one study of 100 participants, which compared an intranasal steroid spray to no intervention. Participants in both groups were also advised to undertake olfactory training for the duration of the trial. Data were identified for only two of the prespecified outcomes for this review, and no data were available for the primary outcome of serious adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroids compared to no intervention (all using olfactory training) Presence of normal olfactory function after three weeks of treatment was self-assessed by the participants, using a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 10, higher scores = better). A score of 10 represented "completely normal smell sensation". The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroids on self-rated recovery of sense of smell (estimated absolute effect 619 per 1000 compared to 520 per 1000, risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell was not reported, but the self-rated score for sense of smell was reported at the endpoint of the study with the same visual analogue scale (after three weeks of treatment). The median scores at endpoint were 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 10) for the group receiving intranasal corticosteroids, and 10 (IQR 5 to 10) for the group receiving no intervention (1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence regarding the efficacy of different interventions at preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a small number of additional ongoing studies in this area. As this is a living systematic review, the evidence will be updated regularly to incorporate new data from these, and other relevant studies, as they become available.  For this (first) version of the living review, we identified a single study of intranasal corticosteroids to include in this review, which provided data for only two of our prespecified outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty, therefore we were unable to determine whether intranasal corticosteroids may have a beneficial or harmful effect.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is an early and sensitive marker of COVID-19 infection. Although self-limiting in the majority of cases, when hyposmia or anosmia persists it can have a profound effect on quality of life. Little guidance exists on the treatment of post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction, however several strategies have been proposed from the evidence relating to the treatment of post-viral anosmia (such as medication or olfactory training). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to treat persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Only individuals who had symptoms for at least four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study with 18 participants, which compared the use of a 15-day course of oral steroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) with no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at baseline, 20 and 40 days. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention Recovery of sense of smell was assessed after 40 days (25 days after cessation of treatment) using the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) score. This tool has a range of 0 to 100, and a score of ≥ 90 represents normal olfactory function. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this intervention on recovery of the sense of smell at one to three months (5/9 participants in the intervention group scored ≥ 90 compared to 0/9 in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 11.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 173.66; 1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell was assessed using the CCCRC score at 40 days. This study reported an improvement in sense of smell in the intervention group from baseline (median improvement in CCCRC score 60, interquartile range (IQR) 40) compared to the control group (median improvement in CCCRC score 30, IQR 25) (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events andother adverse events were not identified in any participants of this study; however, it is unclear how these outcomes were assessed and recorded (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified other ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available. For this (first) version of the living review we identified only one study with a small sample size, which assessed systemic steroids and nasal irrigation (intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant). However, the evidence regarding the benefits and harms from this intervention to treat persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction is very uncertain.

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.   'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).  It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).