Karen Head, Lee Yee Chong, Mahmood F Bhutta, Jessica Daw, Tamara Veselinović, Peter S Morris, Shyan Vijayasekaran, Anne Gm Schilder, Christopher G Brennan-Jones
{"title":"抗生素与局部防腐剂治疗慢性化脓性中耳炎。","authors":"Karen Head, Lee Yee Chong, Mahmood F Bhutta, Jessica Daw, Tamara Veselinović, Peter S Morris, Shyan Vijayasekaran, Anne Gm Schilder, Christopher G Brennan-Jones","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013056.pub3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media, is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity. It is characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics and antiseptics kill or inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be applied topically or administered systemically via the oral or injection route. Antiseptics are always directly applied to the ear (topically).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotics versus antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and five other databases. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The latest search date was 15 June 2022.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving adults and children who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The intervention was any single, or combination of, antibiotic agent, whether applied topically (without steroids) or systemically. The comparison was any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent, applied as ear drops, powders, or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The comparisons were 1. topical antiseptics compared to topical antibiotics, and 2. topical antiseptics compared to systemic antibiotics. We further separated these comparisons into those in which a. both groups of participants received aural toileting in addition to the intervention, or b. both groups received some other add-on therapy treatment (such as systemic antibiotics) to both arms.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We used standard Cochrane methodology. Our primary outcomes were resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes were hearing, serious complications, and ototoxicity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>This updated review included eight new studies. Overall, we identified 15 studies (2371 participants) across seven comparisons with antibiotics compared to acetic acid, aluminium acetate, boric acid, and povidone-iodine. None of the included studies reported health-related quality of life or serious complications. 1. Topical antibiotics (quinolones or aminoglycosides) versus topical antiseptic (acetic acid) We included seven studies (835 participants). Acetic acid may increase resolution of ear discharge when compared to aminoglycoside at one to two weeks (low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether acetic acid may increase resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks when compared to topical quinolone. Results after four weeks were only presented narratively. It is very uncertain whether acetic acid may cause more ear pain, discomfort, local irritation, or combinations of these compared to topical antibiotics (aminoglycosides and quinolones) (risk ratio (RR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 1.12; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 3 studies, 277 participants; very low-certainty evidence). An additional two studies (350 participants) provided narrative results. There may be little to no difference in hearing between groups reported narratively (quinolones; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for serious complications (aminoglycosides) or suspected ototoxicity (aminoglycosides) (very low-certainty evidence). 2. Topical antibiotics (quinolones) versus topical antiseptic (boric acid) We included two studies (532 participants). Topical quinolones are likely to increase resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks compared with boric acid ear drops (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.35; 1 study, 411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that one additional person will have resolution of ear discharge for every four people receiving topical antibiotics (compared with boric acid) at two weeks. No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. There may be less ear pain, discomfort, or irritation with quinolones compared with boric acid (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 2 studies, 510 participants; low-certainty evidence). Suspected ototoxicity and serious complications were not reported. Topical quinolones may result in a greater improvement in mean hearing from baseline compared to topical boric acid (mean difference (MD) 2.79 decibels, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.10; 1 study, 390 participants; low-certainty evidence), but this difference may not be clinically significant. 3. Topical antibiotics (quinolones) versus topical antiseptic (povidone-iodine) We included one study (40 participants). It is very uncertain if there is a difference between quinolones and povidone-iodine with respect to resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported qualitatively that there were no differences between the groups for hearing and no participants developed ototoxic effects (very low-certainty evidence). There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge beyond four weeks; ear pain, discomfort, or irritation; or serious complications. 4. Topical antibiotics versus topical antiseptic (aluminium acetate) We included one study (51 participants; 60 ears) that presented results for resolution of ear discharge at two to four weeks results narratively. No other results were reported. 5. Other comparisons Five studies (966 participants) were assessed over an additional three comparisons; however, these results have not been included in the abstract.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Treatment of CSOM with topical antibiotics (quinolones) likely results in an increase in resolution of ear discharge compared with boric acid at up to two weeks. There was limited evidence for the efficacy of other topical antibiotics or topical antiseptics and so we are unable to draw conclusions. Harmful effects were not well reported. Limitations of the review include lack of recent data, limitations in the quality of included studies, and limited information on certain population groups or interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"6 ","pages":"CD013056"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12145958/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antibiotics versus topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media.\",\"authors\":\"Karen Head, Lee Yee Chong, Mahmood F Bhutta, Jessica Daw, Tamara Veselinović, Peter S Morris, Shyan Vijayasekaran, Anne Gm Schilder, Christopher G Brennan-Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD013056.pub3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media, is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity. It is characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics and antiseptics kill or inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be applied topically or administered systemically via the oral or injection route. Antiseptics are always directly applied to the ear (topically).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotics versus antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and five other databases. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The latest search date was 15 June 2022.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving adults and children who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The intervention was any single, or combination of, antibiotic agent, whether applied topically (without steroids) or systemically. The comparison was any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent, applied as ear drops, powders, or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The comparisons were 1. topical antiseptics compared to topical antibiotics, and 2. topical antiseptics compared to systemic antibiotics. We further separated these comparisons into those in which a. both groups of participants received aural toileting in addition to the intervention, or b. both groups received some other add-on therapy treatment (such as systemic antibiotics) to both arms.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We used standard Cochrane methodology. Our primary outcomes were resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes were hearing, serious complications, and ototoxicity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>This updated review included eight new studies. Overall, we identified 15 studies (2371 participants) across seven comparisons with antibiotics compared to acetic acid, aluminium acetate, boric acid, and povidone-iodine. None of the included studies reported health-related quality of life or serious complications. 1. Topical antibiotics (quinolones or aminoglycosides) versus topical antiseptic (acetic acid) We included seven studies (835 participants). Acetic acid may increase resolution of ear discharge when compared to aminoglycoside at one to two weeks (low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether acetic acid may increase resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks when compared to topical quinolone. Results after four weeks were only presented narratively. It is very uncertain whether acetic acid may cause more ear pain, discomfort, local irritation, or combinations of these compared to topical antibiotics (aminoglycosides and quinolones) (risk ratio (RR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 1.12; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 3 studies, 277 participants; very low-certainty evidence). An additional two studies (350 participants) provided narrative results. There may be little to no difference in hearing between groups reported narratively (quinolones; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for serious complications (aminoglycosides) or suspected ototoxicity (aminoglycosides) (very low-certainty evidence). 2. Topical antibiotics (quinolones) versus topical antiseptic (boric acid) We included two studies (532 participants). Topical quinolones are likely to increase resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks compared with boric acid ear drops (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.35; 1 study, 411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that one additional person will have resolution of ear discharge for every four people receiving topical antibiotics (compared with boric acid) at two weeks. No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. There may be less ear pain, discomfort, or irritation with quinolones compared with boric acid (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 2 studies, 510 participants; low-certainty evidence). Suspected ototoxicity and serious complications were not reported. Topical quinolones may result in a greater improvement in mean hearing from baseline compared to topical boric acid (mean difference (MD) 2.79 decibels, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.10; 1 study, 390 participants; low-certainty evidence), but this difference may not be clinically significant. 3. Topical antibiotics (quinolones) versus topical antiseptic (povidone-iodine) We included one study (40 participants). It is very uncertain if there is a difference between quinolones and povidone-iodine with respect to resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported qualitatively that there were no differences between the groups for hearing and no participants developed ototoxic effects (very low-certainty evidence). There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge beyond four weeks; ear pain, discomfort, or irritation; or serious complications. 4. Topical antibiotics versus topical antiseptic (aluminium acetate) We included one study (51 participants; 60 ears) that presented results for resolution of ear discharge at two to four weeks results narratively. No other results were reported. 5. Other comparisons Five studies (966 participants) were assessed over an additional three comparisons; however, these results have not been included in the abstract.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Treatment of CSOM with topical antibiotics (quinolones) likely results in an increase in resolution of ear discharge compared with boric acid at up to two weeks. There was limited evidence for the efficacy of other topical antibiotics or topical antiseptics and so we are unable to draw conclusions. Harmful effects were not well reported. Limitations of the review include lack of recent data, limitations in the quality of included studies, and limited information on certain population groups or interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"CD013056\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12145958/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013056.pub3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013056.pub3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:慢性化脓性中耳炎(CSOM),有时也被称为慢性中耳炎,是一种中耳和乳突腔的慢性炎症和多微生物感染。其特征是耳部分泌物(耳漏)通过穿孔的鼓膜。CSOM的主要症状是耳塞和听力丧失。抗生素和防腐剂杀死或抑制可能导致感染的微生物。抗生素可以局部应用,也可以通过口服或注射途径全身给药。杀菌剂总是直接涂在耳朵上(局部)。目的:评估抗生素与防腐剂对慢性化脓性中耳炎(CSOM)患者的益处和危害。检索方法:检索Cochrane ENT Register、CENTRAL、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid Embase等5个数据库。我们还检索了ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)。最近一次搜索日期是2022年6月15日。选择标准:我们纳入了至少一周随访的随机对照试验(rct),涉及患有不明原因慢性耳部分泌物或CSOM的成人和儿童,耳部分泌物持续超过两周。干预是任何单一或联合抗生素,无论是局部应用(不含类固醇)还是全身应用。比较是任何单一或组合的局部消毒剂,作为滴耳液,粉末,或冲洗,或作为耳如厕程序的一部分。比较是1。2.局部抗菌剂与局部抗生素的比较。局部抗菌药物与全身抗生素的比较。我们进一步将这些比较分为两组:a.两组参与者在干预之外都接受了耳如,或b.两组参与者都接受了其他一些附加治疗(如全身抗生素)。资料收集和分析:我们使用标准科克伦方法学。我们的主要结果是耳部分泌物或“干耳”的消退(无论耳镜检查是否证实),在一周至两周、两周至四周和四周后测量;使用经过验证的仪器检测与健康有关的生活质量;耳痛(耳痛)或不适或局部刺激。次要结果是听力、严重并发症和耳毒性。我们使用GRADE来评估每个结果证据的确定性。主要结果:这篇更新的综述包括了8项新的研究。总的来说,我们确定了15项研究(2371名参与者),通过7项比较,将抗生素与醋酸、醋酸铝、硼酸和聚维酮碘进行了比较。纳入的研究均未报告与健康相关的生活质量或严重并发症。1. 外用抗生素(喹诺酮类药物或氨基糖苷类药物)与外用防腐剂(醋酸)我们纳入了7项研究(835名受试者)。与氨基糖苷相比,醋酸可在一至两周内增加耳分泌物的清晰度(低确定性证据)。与外用喹诺酮相比,醋酸是否能在一到两周内增加耳液的溶解性尚不确定。四周后的结果仅以叙述方式呈现。与外用抗生素(氨基糖苷类药物和喹诺酮类药物)相比,醋酸是否会引起更多的耳痛、不适、局部刺激或这些因素的组合还非常不确定(风险比(RR) 0.20, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.03 ~ 1.12;I2 = 0%;3项研究,277名受试者;非常低确定性证据)。另外两项研究(350名参与者)提供了叙述性的结果。叙述性报告组之间的听力可能几乎没有差异(喹诺酮类药物;确定性的证据)。严重并发症(氨基糖苷类)或疑似耳毒性(氨基糖苷类)(极低确定性证据)的证据非常不确定。2. 局部抗生素(喹诺酮类)与局部防腐剂(硼酸)我们纳入了两项研究(532名受试者)。与硼酸滴耳液相比,外用喹诺酮类药物可能在一至两周内增加耳液的分辨率(RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.48至2.35;1项研究,411名参与者;moderate-certainty证据)。这意味着在两周内,每四个人接受局部抗生素(与硼酸相比),就有一个人的耳液得到解决。没有研究报告4周后耳液的结果。与硼酸相比,喹诺酮类药物的耳痛、不适或刺激可能更少(RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32至0.98;2项研究,510名受试者;确定性的证据)。疑似耳毒性及严重并发症未见报道。与外用硼酸相比,外用喹诺酮类药物可能导致平均听力较基线有更大的改善(平均差值(MD) 2.79分贝,95% CI 0.48至5)。
Antibiotics versus topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media.
Background: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media, is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity. It is characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics and antiseptics kill or inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be applied topically or administered systemically via the oral or injection route. Antiseptics are always directly applied to the ear (topically).
Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotics versus antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and five other databases. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The latest search date was 15 June 2022.
Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving adults and children who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The intervention was any single, or combination of, antibiotic agent, whether applied topically (without steroids) or systemically. The comparison was any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent, applied as ear drops, powders, or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The comparisons were 1. topical antiseptics compared to topical antibiotics, and 2. topical antiseptics compared to systemic antibiotics. We further separated these comparisons into those in which a. both groups of participants received aural toileting in addition to the intervention, or b. both groups received some other add-on therapy treatment (such as systemic antibiotics) to both arms.
Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodology. Our primary outcomes were resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes were hearing, serious complications, and ototoxicity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
Main results: This updated review included eight new studies. Overall, we identified 15 studies (2371 participants) across seven comparisons with antibiotics compared to acetic acid, aluminium acetate, boric acid, and povidone-iodine. None of the included studies reported health-related quality of life or serious complications. 1. Topical antibiotics (quinolones or aminoglycosides) versus topical antiseptic (acetic acid) We included seven studies (835 participants). Acetic acid may increase resolution of ear discharge when compared to aminoglycoside at one to two weeks (low-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether acetic acid may increase resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks when compared to topical quinolone. Results after four weeks were only presented narratively. It is very uncertain whether acetic acid may cause more ear pain, discomfort, local irritation, or combinations of these compared to topical antibiotics (aminoglycosides and quinolones) (risk ratio (RR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 277 participants; very low-certainty evidence). An additional two studies (350 participants) provided narrative results. There may be little to no difference in hearing between groups reported narratively (quinolones; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for serious complications (aminoglycosides) or suspected ototoxicity (aminoglycosides) (very low-certainty evidence). 2. Topical antibiotics (quinolones) versus topical antiseptic (boric acid) We included two studies (532 participants). Topical quinolones are likely to increase resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks compared with boric acid ear drops (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.35; 1 study, 411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that one additional person will have resolution of ear discharge for every four people receiving topical antibiotics (compared with boric acid) at two weeks. No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. There may be less ear pain, discomfort, or irritation with quinolones compared with boric acid (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 2 studies, 510 participants; low-certainty evidence). Suspected ototoxicity and serious complications were not reported. Topical quinolones may result in a greater improvement in mean hearing from baseline compared to topical boric acid (mean difference (MD) 2.79 decibels, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.10; 1 study, 390 participants; low-certainty evidence), but this difference may not be clinically significant. 3. Topical antibiotics (quinolones) versus topical antiseptic (povidone-iodine) We included one study (40 participants). It is very uncertain if there is a difference between quinolones and povidone-iodine with respect to resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported qualitatively that there were no differences between the groups for hearing and no participants developed ototoxic effects (very low-certainty evidence). There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge beyond four weeks; ear pain, discomfort, or irritation; or serious complications. 4. Topical antibiotics versus topical antiseptic (aluminium acetate) We included one study (51 participants; 60 ears) that presented results for resolution of ear discharge at two to four weeks results narratively. No other results were reported. 5. Other comparisons Five studies (966 participants) were assessed over an additional three comparisons; however, these results have not been included in the abstract.
Authors' conclusions: Treatment of CSOM with topical antibiotics (quinolones) likely results in an increase in resolution of ear discharge compared with boric acid at up to two weeks. There was limited evidence for the efficacy of other topical antibiotics or topical antiseptics and so we are unable to draw conclusions. Harmful effects were not well reported. Limitations of the review include lack of recent data, limitations in the quality of included studies, and limited information on certain population groups or interventions.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.