-
International Journal of... 2021To describe the audio-vestibular disorders related to the newly SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the possible ototoxicity side-effects related to the use of drugs...
To describe the audio-vestibular disorders related to the newly SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the possible ototoxicity side-effects related to the use of drugs included in the SARS-CoV-2 treatment protocols. A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA protocol. The Medline and Embase databases were searched from March 1, 2020 to April 9, 2021. Initially the search yielded 400 manuscripts, which were reduced to 15, upon the application of inclusion criteria. Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is the most frequent audio-vestibular symptom described, occurring alone or in association with tinnitus and vertigo. The etiopathogenesis of the inner ear disorders related to COVID-19 infection is still poorly understood. The number of reports of COVID-19 infections associated to audio-vestibular disorders is increasing; even if the quality of the studies available is often insufficient, audio-vestibular disorders should be considered as possible manifestations to be included among the symptoms of this infection.
Topics: COVID-19; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Ototoxicity; SARS-CoV-2; Vestibular Diseases
PubMed: 34142589
DOI: 10.1177/20587384211027373 -
Oman Medical Journal Jan 2022This systematic review explores the effectiveness and safety of a short-term regimen (STR) in treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). We use several cohort... (Review)
Review
This systematic review explores the effectiveness and safety of a short-term regimen (STR) in treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). We use several cohort studies which were searched using standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The keywords were used based on problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome consisted of MDR-TB and STR. Seven cohort studies were selected from 314 studies. The result showed that STR has better therapeutic efficacy and shorter duration than the 2011 World Health Organization regimen for MDR-TB with success rates above 50% in respective studies. The most effective regimen was kanamycin-high-dose isoniazid-clofazimine-ethambutol-prothionamide-pyrazinamide-gatifloxacin in the intensive phase for four months and clofazimine-ethambutol-pyrazinamide-gatifloxacin-prothionamide in the continuation phase for eight months. Gastrointestinal problems, ototoxicity, dysglycemia, and liver problems were the most reported side effects. STR provides good effectiveness in MDR-TB treatment in terms of treatment success rate and short therapy duration.
PubMed: 35211341
DOI: 10.5001/omj.2021.64 -
Stem Cells International 2021A systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) for regeneration of the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) for regeneration of the tympanic membrane (TM).
METHODS
The PubMed database was searched for relevant studies. Experimental and clinical studies reporting acute and chronic TM perforations in relation to two healing outcomes (success rate and closure time) and complications were selected.
RESULTS
A total of 47 studies were included. Five experimental studies showed closure rates of 55%-100% with FGF2 compared with 10%-62.5% in controls for acute perforations. Five experimental studies showed closure rates of 30.3%-100% with EGF and 3.6%-41% in controls for chronic perforations. Two experimental studies showed closure rates of 31.6% or 85.7% with FGF2 and 15.8% or 100% with EGF. Nine clinical studies of acute large perforations showed closure rates of 91.4%-100% with FGF2 or EGF. Two clinical studies showed similar closure rates between groups treated with FGF2 and EGF. Seven clinical studies showed closure rates of 88.9%-100% within 3 months and 58%-66% within 12 months using FGF2 in repair of chronic perforations, but only one study showed a significantly higher closure rate in the saline group compared with the FGF2 group (71.4% vs. 57.5%, respectively, = 0.547). In addition, three experimental studies showed no ototoxicity associated with FGF2 or EGF. No middle ear cholesteatoma or epithelial pearls were reported, except in one experimental study and one clinical study, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
FGF2 and EGF showed good effects and reliable safety for the regeneration of TM. In addition, EGF was better for the regeneration of acute perforations, while FGF2 combined with biological scaffolds was superior to EGF for chronic perforations, but was associated with high rates of reperforation over time. Further studies are required to determine whether EGF or FGF2 is better for TM regeneration.
PubMed: 34306094
DOI: 10.1155/2021/2366291 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and 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. Systemic antibiotics are a commonly used treatment option for CSOM, which 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.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM.
SEARCH METHODS
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.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) against placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving patients with chronic (at least two weeks) ear discharge of unknown cause or due to CSOM. Other treatments were allowed if both treatment and control arms also received it.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
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 using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies (2135 participants) with unclear or high risk of bias. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge at between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 33 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. Ear pain and suspected ototoxicity were not reported. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Six studies were included of which five presented useable data. There may be little or no difference in the resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks for oral ciprofloxacin compared to placebo or no treatment when ciprofloxacin ear drops were used in both intervention arms (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence). No results after two weeks were reported. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received other background treatments) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus steroids as background treatment in both arms. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge between metronidazole and placebo at four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 40 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if resolution of ear discharge at six weeks was improved with co-trimoxazole compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 98 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ear discharge was not reported at other time points. From the narrative report there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms and found similar resolution of ear discharge between the amoxicillin and no treatment groups at three to four months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41; 136 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (both very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported. 4. Different types of systemic antibiotics This is a summary of four comparisons, where different antibiotics were compared to each other. Eight studies compared different types of systemic antibiotics against each other: quinolones against beta-lactams (four studies), lincosamides against nitroimidazoles (one study) and comparisons of different types of beta-lactams (three studies). It was not possible to conclude if there was one class or type of systemic antibiotic that was better in terms of resolution of ear discharge. The studies did not report adverse events well.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a limited amount of evidence available to examine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. When used alone (with or without aural toileting), we are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an effective intervention such as topical antibiotics, there seems to be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics and it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic may be more effective than another. Adverse effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the studies included. As we found very sparse evidence for their efficacy, the possibility of adverse events may detract from their use for CSOM.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Ototoxicity; Pain; Persistent Infection
PubMed: 35819801
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013052.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) 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. Antibiotics are the most common treatment for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be administered both topically and systemically, and can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM such as ear cleaning (aural toileting).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical versus systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM.
SEARCH METHODS
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.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (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 studies compared topical antibiotics against systemic (oral, injection) antibiotics. We separated studies according to whether they compared the same type of antibiotic in both treatment groups, or different types of antibiotics. For each comparison we considered whether there was background treatment for both treatment groups, for example aural toileting (ear cleaning).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
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 up to four weeks, and after four weeks), health-related quality of life using a validated instrument, ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (445 participants), all with high risk of bias, were included. All but two studies included patients with confirmed CSOM, where perforation of the ear drum was clearly documented. None of the studies reported results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks or health-related quality of life. 1. Topical versus systemic administration of the same type of antibiotics (quinolones) Four studies (325 participants) compared topical versus systemic (oral) administration of ciprofloxacin. Three studies reported resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks and found that the topical administration may slightly increase resolution (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.76; 285 participants; 3 studies; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). In these studies, aural toileting was either not mentioned, or limited to the first visit. Three studies (265 participants) reported that they did not suspect ototoxicity in any participants, but it is unclear how this was measured (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcomes of ear pain or serious complications. No studies reported results for hearing, despite it being measured in three studies. 2. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus aminoglycosides) One study (60 participants) compared topical ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin injected intramuscularly. No aural toileting was reported. Resolution of ear discharge was not measured at one to two weeks. The study did not report any 'side effects' from which we assumed that no ear pain, suspected ototoxicity or serious complications occurred (very low-certainty evidence). The study stated that "no worsening of the audiometric function related to local or parenteral therapy was observed". 3. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid) One study compared topical ofloxacin with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with all participants receiving suction ear cleaning at the first visit. It is uncertain if there is a difference between the two groups in resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks due to study limitations and the very small sample size (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.72; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if there is a difference between topical quinolone compared with oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with regards to ear pain, hearing or suspected ototoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome of serious complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a limited amount of low-quality evidence available, from studies completed over 15 years ago, to examine whether topical or systemic antibiotics are more effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the topical administration of antibiotics may be more effective than systemic administration of antibiotics in achieving resolution of ear discharge (dry ear). There is limited evidence available regarding different types of antibiotics. It is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not topical quinolones are better or worse than systemic 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.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Aminoglycosides; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Child; Chronic Disease; Humans; Ofloxacin; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33561891
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013053.pub2 -
The International Journal of... Jan 2021The use of injectable antibiotics to treat multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) is associated with substantial morbidity due to long-term hearing loss. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The use of injectable antibiotics to treat multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) is associated with substantial morbidity due to long-term hearing loss. This systematic review evaluates the incidence of ototoxicity among patients treated for MDR-TB, and the evidence for routine audiometric monitoring to mitigate its severity. Studies of ototoxicity among patients with MDR-TB were identified from six databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the overall incidence of hearing loss, tinnitus and vertigo. The incidence of hearing loss was further stratified by country income status and the injectable agent used during treatment. Among 64 studies from 25 countries including 12 793 patients, 28.3% (95%CI 23.4-33.1) of patients treated with injectables reported hearing loss. Tinnitus and vertigo were experienced by respectively 14.5% (95%CI 10.3-18.7) and 8.1% (95%CI 4.7-11.6) of patients. The incidence of hearing loss was highest among patients treated with amikacin (33.4%, 95%CI 18.2-48.6), and lowest among those treated with capreomycin (2.0%, 95%CI 0-5.5). We found that audiometry was widely used as a method of evaluating hearing loss, and was feasible in a wide range of settings. Injectable antibiotics contribute to significant morbidity in patients with MDR-TB. In settings where they are used, routine audiometric monitoring is recommended to prevent irreversible damage.
Topics: Amikacin; Antitubercular Agents; Capreomycin; Humans; Ototoxicity; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 33384041
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.20.0217 -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Jul 2023Updated European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) amikacin breakpoints for Enterobacterales and included revised dosing recommendations of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Updated European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) amikacin breakpoints for Enterobacterales and included revised dosing recommendations of 25-30 mg/kg to achieve key pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters, higher than recommended in the British National Formulary. The objectives of this review were to identify clinical evidence for high-dose amikacin regimens and to determine drug exposures that are related to adverse events and toxicity.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted in October 2021 and updated in May 2022 using electronic databases for any study reporting adult participants treated with amikacin at doses ≥20 mg/kg/day. Reference lists of included papers were also screened for potential papers. Data were extracted for pharmacokinetic parameters and clinical outcomes, presented in a summary table and consolidated narratively. Meta-analysis was not possible. Each study was assessed for bias before, during and after the intervention using the ROBINS-I tool.
RESULTS
Nine studies (total 501 participants in 10 reports) were identified and included, eight of which were observational studies. Assessment of bias showed substantial flaws. Dosing regimens ranged from 25 to 30 mg/kg/day. Six studies adjusted the dose in obesity when participants had a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m. Target peak serum concentrations ranged from 60 mg/L to 80 mg/L and 59.6-81.8% of patients achieved these targets, but there was no information on clinical outcomes. Two studies reported the impact of high-dose amikacin on renal function. No studies reporting auditory or vestibular toxicity were identified.
CONCLUSION
All included papers were limited by a significant risk of bias, while methodological and reporting heterogeneity made drawing conclusions challenging. Lack of information on the impact on renal function or ototoxicity means high-dose regimens should be used cautiously in older people. There is a need for a consensus guideline for high-dose amikacin to be written.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO (CRD42021250022).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Humans; Amikacin; Clinical Protocols
PubMed: 36344247
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003421 -
Current Molecular Medicine Aug 2023Aminoglycosides are among the first-choice antibiotics for routine clinical use. However, dose-limiting factors such as ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity are considered as...
INTRODUCTION
Aminoglycosides are among the first-choice antibiotics for routine clinical use. However, dose-limiting factors such as ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity are considered as serious complications of aminoglycosides.
OBJECTIVE
In this systematic review, the main goal was to investigate the efficacy and incidence of nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity of once-daily dosing (ODD) and multiple daily dosing (MDD) regimens of aminoglycosides through available randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
We performed a literature-based research in relevant databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS published between 1987 and 2023 using the keywords "aminoglycosides", "pharmacokinetics", "ODD", "MDD", "once daily", "multiple daily", "dosing regimen", "nephrotoxicity", "ototoxicity", "efficacy", "safety", and "toxicity". As so told, the results of this article were limited to papers available in English. Our initial search yielded 1124 results. After a review of the titles and abstracts of the articles, 803 articles were excluded from this study because they did not address the toxicity and effectiveness of ODD versus MDD of aminoglycosides. A total number of 21 studies on gentamicin, tobramycin, netilmicin, and amikacin met the inclusion criteria for the efficacy of aminoglycosides and their role in ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity were included in this review. Studies recruited different age classes, and the age of relevant cohorts varied from only a few days to more than 70 years.
RESULTS
The most common clinical condition in the included studies was cystic fibrosis.
CONCLUSION
In most studies, there were no significant differences between the two regimens regarding ototoxicity. In addition, the ODD regimens were safer than MDD concerning nephrotoxicity.
PubMed: 37533241
DOI: 10.2174/1566524023666230801160452 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2021Drugs used in curative and prophylactic antimalarial treatment may be ototoxic and lead to permanent hearing loss, but there is no consensus regarding prevalence and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Drugs used in curative and prophylactic antimalarial treatment may be ototoxic and lead to permanent hearing loss, but there is no consensus regarding prevalence and permanence of ototoxic hearing loss caused by antimalarials. The purpose of this systematic narrative review was to synthesize current evidence on antimalarial ototoxicity in human populations.
METHOD
Studies published between 2005 and 2018 that reported prevalence of post-treatment hearing loss in individuals treated for malaria were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies including data from 21 countries were included. Primary themes of the included studies were to evaluate drug safety and/or efficacy (n = 13) or ototoxic effects of drugs (n = 9). Hearing data were measured objectively in 9 studies. Five studies focused on quinine (or derivates), 10 focused on artemisinin combination therapies, and 7 considered multiple drug combinations. There is a paucity of evidence that thoroughly reports potentially permanent ototoxic effects of antimalarials.
CONCLUSIONS
Antimalarial drugs may be ototoxic in some cases. More research in human populations is needed to describe ototoxicity of current antimalarials and of future drugs that will be used/developed in response to antimalarial resistance. It is recommended that randomized trials evaluating drug safety objectively measure and report ototoxic hearing loss as an adverse event.
Topics: Antimalarials; Hearing Loss; Humans; Malaria; Quinine
PubMed: 34129960
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102117 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Aug 2022Aminoglycosides are widely used, broad-spectrum antibiotics with significant potential for ototoxicity. Global efforts to prevent ototoxicity must account for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Aminoglycosides are widely used, broad-spectrum antibiotics with significant potential for ototoxicity. Global efforts to prevent ototoxicity must account for aminoglycoside overuse and non-prescription use.
OBJECTIVES
The goals of this study were to a) estimate the prevalence of aminoglycoside overuse by synthesizing evidence on self-medication, over the counter (OTC) availability, and household antibiotic storage for later use, and to report the specific aminoglycosides used and the predictors of overuse, and b) leverage this information to comment on potential risk of ototoxicity.
METHODS
Two systematic search strings were conducted to extract peer-reviewed articles published from 2005 to 2020. The first focused on overuse of aminoglycoside antibiotics. The second focused on potentially ototoxic effects of aminoglycosides related to drug overuse.
RESULTS
A total of 26 articles were included (first search string: n = 21; second search string: n = 5). The prevalence of aminoglycoside self-medication was high and household storage and OTC availability of aminoglycosides was common. Gentamicin was the most commonly overused aminoglycoside. No studies provided information on antibiotic dosing or resultant toxicities, including ototoxicity.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited available evidence indicates that antibiotic overuse (self-medication, home storage, and non-prescription availability) is relatively common, especially in low resource settings, and that aminoglycoside antibiotics comprise a variable, but concerning, proportion of non-prescribed antibiotics. Additional evidence is needed to evaluate the relationship between these dispensing patterns and ototoxicity.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Ototoxicity; Prescription Drug Overuse
PubMed: 34711521
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.10.004