局部用唑治疗耳真菌病。

Ambrose Lee, James R Tysome, Shakeel R Saeed
{"title":"局部用唑治疗耳真菌病。","authors":"Ambrose Lee,&nbsp;James R Tysome,&nbsp;Shakeel R Saeed","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD009289.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Otomycosis is a fungal infection of the outer ear, which may be treated with topical antifungal medications. There are many types, with compounds belonging to the azole group ('azoles') being among the most widely used.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the benefits and harms of topical azole treatments for otomycosis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The search date was 11 November 2020.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with otomycosis comparing any topical azole antifungal with: placebo, no treatment, another type of topical azole or the same type of azole but applied in different forms. A minimum follow-up of two weeks was required.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) clinical resolution as measured by the proportion of participants with complete resolution at between two and four weeks after treatment (however defined by the authors of the studies) and 2) significant adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 3) mycological resolution and 4) other less serious adverse effects. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included four studies with 559 participants from Spain, Mexico and India. Three studies included children and adults; one included only adults. The duration of symptoms was not always explicitly stated. Mycological resolution results were only reported in one study. The studies assessed two comparisons: one type of topical azole versus another and the same azole but administered in different forms (cream versus solution). A. Topical azoles versus placebo None of the studies assessed this comparison. B. Topical azoles versus no treatment None of the studies assessed this comparison. C. One type of topical azole versus another type of topical azole i) Clotrimazole versus other types of azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole) Three studies examined clotrimazole versus other types of azoles. The evidence is very uncertain about the difference between clotrimazole and other types of azole in achieving complete clinical resolution at four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.07; 3 studies; 439 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The anticipated absolute effects are 668 per 1000 for clotrimazole versus 835 per 1000 for other azoles. One study planned a safety analysis and reported no significant adverse events in either group. The evidence is therefore very uncertain about any differences between clotrimazole and other types of azole (no events in either group; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Clotrimazole may result in little or no difference in mycological resolution at two weeks follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; 1 study; 174 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in other (less serious) adverse events at two weeks follow-up (36 per 1000, compared to 45 per 1000, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.41; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). ii) Bifonazole cream versus bifonazole solution One study compared bifonazole 1% cream with solution. Bifonazole cream may have little or no effect on clinical resolution at two weeks follow-up when compared to solution, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.57; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Bifonazole cream may achieve less mycological resolution compared to solution at two weeks after the end of therapy, but the evidence for this is also very uncertain (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Five out of 35 patients sustained severe itching and burning from the bifonazole solution but none with the bifonazole cream (very low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>We found no studies that evaluated topical azoles compared to placebo or no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of clotrimazole on clinical resolution of otomycosis, on significant adverse events or other (non-serious) adverse events when compared with other topical azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole). There may be little or no difference between clotrimazole and other azoles in terms of mycological resolution. It may be difficult to generalise these results because the range of ethnic backgrounds of the participants in the studies is limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD009289"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD009289.pub2","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Topical azole treatments for otomycosis.\",\"authors\":\"Ambrose Lee,&nbsp;James R Tysome,&nbsp;Shakeel R Saeed\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD009289.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Otomycosis is a fungal infection of the outer ear, which may be treated with topical antifungal medications. There are many types, with compounds belonging to the azole group ('azoles') being among the most widely used.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the benefits and harms of topical azole treatments for otomycosis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The search date was 11 November 2020.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with otomycosis comparing any topical azole antifungal with: placebo, no treatment, another type of topical azole or the same type of azole but applied in different forms. A minimum follow-up of two weeks was required.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) clinical resolution as measured by the proportion of participants with complete resolution at between two and four weeks after treatment (however defined by the authors of the studies) and 2) significant adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 3) mycological resolution and 4) other less serious adverse effects. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included four studies with 559 participants from Spain, Mexico and India. Three studies included children and adults; one included only adults. The duration of symptoms was not always explicitly stated. Mycological resolution results were only reported in one study. The studies assessed two comparisons: one type of topical azole versus another and the same azole but administered in different forms (cream versus solution). A. Topical azoles versus placebo None of the studies assessed this comparison. B. Topical azoles versus no treatment None of the studies assessed this comparison. C. One type of topical azole versus another type of topical azole i) Clotrimazole versus other types of azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole) Three studies examined clotrimazole versus other types of azoles. The evidence is very uncertain about the difference between clotrimazole and other types of azole in achieving complete clinical resolution at four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.07; 3 studies; 439 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The anticipated absolute effects are 668 per 1000 for clotrimazole versus 835 per 1000 for other azoles. One study planned a safety analysis and reported no significant adverse events in either group. The evidence is therefore very uncertain about any differences between clotrimazole and other types of azole (no events in either group; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Clotrimazole may result in little or no difference in mycological resolution at two weeks follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; 1 study; 174 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in other (less serious) adverse events at two weeks follow-up (36 per 1000, compared to 45 per 1000, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.41; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). ii) Bifonazole cream versus bifonazole solution One study compared bifonazole 1% cream with solution. Bifonazole cream may have little or no effect on clinical resolution at two weeks follow-up when compared to solution, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.57; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Bifonazole cream may achieve less mycological resolution compared to solution at two weeks after the end of therapy, but the evidence for this is also very uncertain (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Five out of 35 patients sustained severe itching and burning from the bifonazole solution but none with the bifonazole cream (very low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>We found no studies that evaluated topical azoles compared to placebo or no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of clotrimazole on clinical resolution of otomycosis, on significant adverse events or other (non-serious) adverse events when compared with other topical azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole). There may be little or no difference between clotrimazole and other azoles in terms of mycological resolution. It may be difficult to generalise these results because the range of ethnic backgrounds of the participants in the studies is limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":515753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"CD009289\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD009289.pub2\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009289.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009289.pub2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景:耳真菌病是一种外耳真菌感染,可以用局部抗真菌药物治疗。有很多种类型,其中属于唑族的化合物(“azoles”)是最广泛使用的化合物之一。目的:评价外用唑治疗耳真菌病的利与弊。检索方法:Cochrane耳鼻喉科信息专家检索Cochrane耳鼻喉科注册;中央对照试验登记册;奥维德MEDLINE;奥维德Embase;CINAHL;Web of Science;ClinicalTrials.gov;ICTRP和其他已发表和未发表试验的来源。搜索日期为2020年11月11日。选择标准:我们纳入了成人和患有耳真菌病的儿童的随机对照试验(rct),将任何外用唑类抗真菌药物与安慰剂、无治疗、另一种外用唑类或相同类型的唑类但以不同形式应用进行比较。至少需要随访两周。资料收集与分析:采用标准Cochrane方法。我们的主要结果是:1)临床缓解,以治疗后2 - 4周(无论研究作者如何定义)完全缓解的参与者比例来衡量;2)显著不良事件。次要结果是3)真菌学消退和4)其他不太严重的不良反应。我们使用GRADE来评估每个结果证据的确定性。主要结果:我们纳入了四项研究,共有559名来自西班牙、墨西哥和印度的参与者。三项研究包括儿童和成人;其中一项只包括成年人。症状的持续时间并不总是明确说明。真菌学分解结果仅在一项研究中报道。研究评估了两种比较:一种外用唑与另一种外用唑,以及相同的唑,但以不同形式(乳膏与溶液)施用。A.局部唑类药物与安慰剂没有研究评估这种比较。B.局部治疗与不治疗没有研究评估这种比较。C.一种类型的局部唑与另一种类型的局部唑i)克霉唑与其他类型的唑(埃伯康唑、氟康唑、咪康唑)三个研究检查了克霉唑与其他类型的唑。证据非常不确定克霉唑与其他类型的唑在四周达到完全临床消退方面的差异(风险比(RR) 0.80, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.59 ~ 1.07;3研究;439名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。预期的绝对效应是克霉唑的668 / 1000,而其他唑的835 / 1000。一项研究计划进行安全性分析,报告两组均无明显不良事件。因此,证据非常不确定克霉唑和其他类型的唑之间是否有任何差异(两组均无事件发生;1研究;174名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。两周随访时,克霉唑对真菌学分辨率的影响可能很小或没有差异(RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 ~ 1.06;1研究;174名参与者;低确定性证据)或其他(不太严重的)不良事件(36 / 1000,相对于45 / 1000,RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.18 - 3.41;1研究;174名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。ii)联苯唑乳膏与联苯唑溶液一项研究比较了1%联苯唑乳膏与溶液。与溶液相比,联苯唑乳膏在两周随访时对临床缓解的影响可能很小或没有影响,但证据非常不确定(RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73至1.57;1研究;40耳;非常低确定性证据)。在治疗结束后两周,与溶液相比,联苯唑乳膏的真菌学消退可能更少,但这方面的证据也非常不确定(RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29至0.96;1研究;40耳;非常低确定性证据)。35例患者中有5例因使用联苯唑溶液而出现严重瘙痒和灼烧,但没有患者使用联苯唑乳膏(非常低确定性证据)。作者的结论:我们没有发现将局部唑与安慰剂或无治疗进行比较的研究。与其他外用唑类药物(依伯康唑、氟康唑、咪康唑)相比,克霉唑对耳真菌病的临床消退、重大不良事件或其他(非严重)不良事件的影响尚无证据。在真菌学分解方面,克霉唑和其他的唑可能没有差别。可能很难概括这些结果,因为研究参与者的种族背景范围有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Topical azole treatments for otomycosis.

Background: Otomycosis is a fungal infection of the outer ear, which may be treated with topical antifungal medications. There are many types, with compounds belonging to the azole group ('azoles') being among the most widely used.

Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of topical azole treatments for otomycosis.

Search methods: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The search date was 11 November 2020.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with otomycosis comparing any topical azole antifungal with: placebo, no treatment, another type of topical azole or the same type of azole but applied in different forms. A minimum follow-up of two weeks was required.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) clinical resolution as measured by the proportion of participants with complete resolution at between two and four weeks after treatment (however defined by the authors of the studies) and 2) significant adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 3) mycological resolution and 4) other less serious adverse effects. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Main results: We included four studies with 559 participants from Spain, Mexico and India. Three studies included children and adults; one included only adults. The duration of symptoms was not always explicitly stated. Mycological resolution results were only reported in one study. The studies assessed two comparisons: one type of topical azole versus another and the same azole but administered in different forms (cream versus solution). A. Topical azoles versus placebo None of the studies assessed this comparison. B. Topical azoles versus no treatment None of the studies assessed this comparison. C. One type of topical azole versus another type of topical azole i) Clotrimazole versus other types of azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole) Three studies examined clotrimazole versus other types of azoles. The evidence is very uncertain about the difference between clotrimazole and other types of azole in achieving complete clinical resolution at four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.07; 3 studies; 439 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The anticipated absolute effects are 668 per 1000 for clotrimazole versus 835 per 1000 for other azoles. One study planned a safety analysis and reported no significant adverse events in either group. The evidence is therefore very uncertain about any differences between clotrimazole and other types of azole (no events in either group; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Clotrimazole may result in little or no difference in mycological resolution at two weeks follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; 1 study; 174 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in other (less serious) adverse events at two weeks follow-up (36 per 1000, compared to 45 per 1000, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.41; 1 study; 174 participants; very low-certainty evidence). ii) Bifonazole cream versus bifonazole solution One study compared bifonazole 1% cream with solution. Bifonazole cream may have little or no effect on clinical resolution at two weeks follow-up when compared to solution, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.57; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Bifonazole cream may achieve less mycological resolution compared to solution at two weeks after the end of therapy, but the evidence for this is also very uncertain (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; 1 study; 40 ears; very low-certainty evidence). Five out of 35 patients sustained severe itching and burning from the bifonazole solution but none with the bifonazole cream (very low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: We found no studies that evaluated topical azoles compared to placebo or no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of clotrimazole on clinical resolution of otomycosis, on significant adverse events or other (non-serious) adverse events when compared with other topical azoles (eberconazole, fluconazole, miconazole). There may be little or no difference between clotrimazole and other azoles in terms of mycological resolution. It may be difficult to generalise these results because the range of ethnic backgrounds of the participants in the studies is limited.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信