Brennan-Jones Christopher G, Chong Lee-Yee, Head Karen, Burton Martin J, Schilder Anne Gm, Bhutta Mahmood F
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 27;8(8):CD013054. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013054.pub2.
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as steroids, antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in combined preparations with steroids.
To assess the effects of adding a topical steroid to topical antibiotics in the treatment of people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any combination of a topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class and a topical corticosteroid (steroid) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic and steroid compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic.
We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity.
We included 17 studies addressing 11 treatment comparisons. A total of 1901 participants were included, with one study (40 ears) not reporting the number of participants recruited, which we therefore could not account for. No studies reported health-related quality of life. The main comparisons were: 1. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus placebo or no treatment Three studies (210 participants) compared a topical antibiotic-steroid to saline or no treatment. Resolution of discharge was not reported at between one to two weeks. One study (50 'high-risk' children) reported results at more than four weeks by ear and we could not adjust the results to by person. The study reported that 58% (of 41 ears) resolved with topical antibiotics compared with 50% (of 26 ears) with no treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (123 participants) noted minor side effects in 16% of participants in both the intervention and placebo groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (123 participants) reported no change in bone-conduction hearing thresholds and reported no difference in tinnitus or balance problems between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (50 participants) reported serious complications, but it was not clear which group these patients were from, or whether the complications occurred pre- or post-treatment. One study (123 participants) reported that no side effects occurred in any participants (very low-certainty evidence). 2. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus topical antibiotics (same antibiotics) only Four studies (475 participants) were included in this comparison. Three studies (340 participants) compared topical antibiotic-steroid combinations to topical antibiotics alone. The evidence suggests little or no difference in resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 82.7% versus 76.6% (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.21; 335 participants; 3 studies (4 study arms); low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of discharge after four weeks were reported. One study (110 participants) reported local itchiness but as there was only one episode in each group it is uncertain whether there is a difference (very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (395 participants) investigated suspected ototoxicity but it was not possible to determine whether there were differences between the groups for this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported serious complications. 3. Topical antibiotics with steroids compared to topical antibiotics alone (different antibiotics) Nine studies (981 participants plus 40 ears) evaluated a range of comparisons of topical non-quinolone antibiotic-steroid combinations versus topical quinolone antibiotics alone. Resolution of discharge may be greater with quinolone topical antibiotics alone at between one to two weeks compared with non-quinolone topical antibiotics with steroids: 82.1% versus 63.2% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 7 studies; 903 participants, low-certainty evidence). Results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were not reported. One study (52 participants) reported usable data on ear pain, two studies (419 participants) reported hearing outcomes and one study (52 participants) reported balance problems. It was not possible to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups for these outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (149 participants) reported no serious complications (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics with steroids in improving the resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-certainty evidence available. Amongst this uncertainty, we found no evidence that the addition of steroids to topical antibiotics affects the resolution of ear discharge. There is also low-certainty evidence that some types of topical antibiotics (without steroids) may be better than topical antibiotic/steroid combinations in improving resolution of discharge. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.
慢性化脓性中耳炎(CSOM)是中耳和乳突腔的慢性炎症,常为多微生物感染,其特征是通过鼓膜穿孔出现耳漏(耳溢液)。CSOM的主要症状是耳漏和听力损失。局部用抗生素可杀死或抑制可能导致感染的微生物生长。抗生素可单独使用,或作为CSOM其他治疗方法(如类固醇、防腐剂或耳部清洁(耳道冲洗))的辅助用药。抗生素通常与类固醇制成复方制剂使用。
评估在慢性化脓性中耳炎(CSOM)患者治疗中,局部用抗生素添加局部用类固醇的效果。
Cochrane耳鼻喉科信息专家检索了Cochrane耳鼻喉科登记册;对照试验中央登记册(通过Cochrane研究登记册检索CENTRAL);Ovid MEDLINE;Ovid Embase;CINAHL;科学引文索引;ClinicalTrials.gov;国际临床试验注册平台以及其他已发表和未发表试验的来源。检索日期为2020年3月16日。
我们纳入了至少为期一周随访的随机对照试验(RCT),受试者为有不明原因慢性耳漏或CSOM的参与者(成人和儿童),耳漏持续时间超过两周。干预措施为任何类别的局部用抗生素与任何类别的局部用皮质类固醇(类固醇)的任意组合,以滴耳液、粉剂或冲洗液的形式直接滴入耳道,或作为耳道冲洗程序的一部分。两个主要比较为局部用抗生素和类固醇与a)安慰剂或无干预以及b)另一种局部用抗生素的比较。
我们采用了标准的Cochrane方法学程序。我们使用GRADE评估每个结局的证据确定性。我们的主要结局为:耳漏消退或“干耳”(无论是否经耳镜证实),在1周至2周、2周至4周以及4周后进行测量;健康相关生活质量;耳痛(耳内疼痛)或不适或局部刺激。次要结局包括听力、严重并发症和耳毒性。
我们纳入了17项研究,涉及11种治疗比较。总共纳入了1901名参与者,有一项研究(40只耳)未报告招募的参与者数量,因此我们无法计入。没有研究报告健康相关生活质量。主要比较如下:1. 局部用抗生素与类固醇对比安慰剂或无治疗:三项研究(210名参与者)将局部用抗生素 - 类固醇与生理盐水或无治疗进行了比较。1至2周时未报告耳漏消退情况。一项研究(50名“高危”儿童)在4周后按耳报告了结果,我们无法将结果调整为人。该研究报告称,局部用抗生素治疗的耳中58%(41只耳)耳漏消退,未治疗的耳中为50%(26只耳),但证据非常不确定。一项研究(123名参与者)指出,干预组和安慰剂组中均有16%的参与者出现轻微副作用(极低确定性证据)。一项研究(123名参与者)报告骨传导听力阈值无变化,且两组在耳鸣或平衡问题方面无差异(极低确定性证据)。一项研究(50名参与者)报告了严重并发症,但不清楚这些患者来自哪组,也不清楚并发症是发生在治疗前还是治疗后。一项研究(123名参与者)报告所有参与者均未出现副作用(极低确定性证据)。2. 局部用抗生素与类固醇对比仅局部用抗生素(相同抗生素):四项研究(475名参与者)纳入了该比较。三项研究(340名参与者)将局部用抗生素 - 类固醇组合与单独的局部用抗生素进行了比较。证据表明,1至2周时耳漏消退情况几乎没有差异:82.7% 对比76.6%(风险比(RR)1.08,95%置信区间(CI)0.96至1.21;335名参与者;3项研究(4个研究臂);低确定性证据)。未报告4周后耳漏消退的结果。一项研究(110名参与者)报告了局部瘙痒,但由于每组仅出现1例,因此不确定是否存在差异(极低确定性证据)。三项研究(395名参与者)调查了疑似耳毒性,但无法确定该结局两组之间是否存在差异(极低确定性证据)。没有研究报告严重并发症。3. 局部用抗生素与类固醇对比单独局部用抗生素(不同抗生素):九项研究(981名参与者加40只耳)评估了局部非喹诺酮类抗生素 - 类固醇组合与单独局部用喹诺酮类抗生素的一系列比较。与含类固醇的非喹诺酮类局部用抗生素相比,单独使用喹诺酮类局部用抗生素在1至2周时耳漏消退情况可能更好:82.1% 对比63.2%(RR 0.77,95% CI 0.71至0.84;7项研究;903名参与者,低确定性证据)。未报告4周后耳漏消退的结果。一项研究(52名参与者)报告了关于耳痛的可用数据,两项研究(419名参与者)报告了听力结局,一项研究(52名参与者)报告了平衡问题。无法确定这些结局两组之间是否存在显著差异(极低确定性证据)。两项研究(149名参与者)报告无严重并发症(极低确定性证据)。
由于现有低确定性证据数量有限,我们不确定局部用抗生素与类固醇在改善CSOM患者耳漏消退方面的有效性。在这种不确定性中,我们未发现证据表明局部用抗生素添加类固醇会影响耳漏消退。也有低确定性证据表明,某些类型的局部用抗生素(无类固醇)在改善耳漏消退方面可能优于局部用抗生素/类固醇组合。不同类型抗生素的相对有效性也存在不确定性;无法确定喹诺酮类是否比氨基糖苷类更好或更差。这两组化合物有不同的不良反应谱,但纳入研究中的证据不足,无法对此发表任何评论。总体而言,不良反应报告不佳。