-
Otology & Neurotology : Official... Feb 2021To systematically review the available medical literature to investigate the viral load in the middle ear and mastoid cavity and the potential risk of exposure to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the available medical literature to investigate the viral load in the middle ear and mastoid cavity and the potential risk of exposure to airborne viruses during otologic surgery.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases.
STUDY SELECTION
This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocol.
DATA EXTRACTION
Using the Boolean method and relevant search term combinations for terms "mastoid," "middle ear," "virus," "exposure" "COVID-19" "SARS-CoV-2." PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were queried. A total of 57 abstracts were identified and screened by two independent reviewers. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 18 studies were selected for the final analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Due to the heterogeneity of clinical data, a meta-analysis was not feasible.
RESULTS
Rhinovirus, followed by respiratory syncytial virus are reported to be the most prevalent viruses in MEF samples but formal statistical analysis is precluded by the heterogeneity of the studies. Drilling was identified to have the highest risk for aerosol generation and therefore viral exposure during otologic Surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
The medical literature has consistently demonstrated the presence of nucleic acids of respiratory viruses involving the middle ear, including SARS-CoV2 in a recent postmortem study. Although no in vivo studies have been conducted, due to the likely risk of transmission, middle ear and mastoid procedures, particularly involving the use of a drill should be deferred, if possible, during the pandemic and enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) used if surgery is necessary.
Topics: COVID-19; Ear, Middle; Humans; Mastoid; Otologic Surgical Procedures; Pandemics; Viral Load
PubMed: 33201081
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002986 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Diagnostic delay in common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVID) is considerable. There is no generally accepted symptom-recognition framework for its early... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic delay in common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVID) is considerable. There is no generally accepted symptom-recognition framework for its early detection.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review all existing data on the clinical presentation of CVID.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched for cohort studies, published January/1999-December/2019, detailing the clinical manifestations before, at and after the CVID-diagnosis.
RESULTS
In 51 studies (n=8521 patients) 134 presenting and 270 total clinical manifestations were identified. Recurrent upper and/or lower respiratory infections were present at diagnosis in 75%. Many patients had suffered severe bacterial infections (osteomyelitis 4%, meningitis 6%, septicemia 8%, mastoiditis 8%). Bronchiectasis (28%), lymphadenopathy (27%), splenomegaly (13%), inflammatory bowel disease (11%), autoimmune cytopenia (10%) and idiopathic thrombocytopenia (6%) were also frequently reported. A bimodal sex distribution was found, with male predominance in children (62%) and female predominance in adults (58%). 25% of CVID-patients developed other manifestations besides infections in childhood, this percentage was much higher in adults (62%). Immune-dysregulation features, such as granulomatous-lymphocytic interstitial lung disease and inflammatory bowel disease, were more prominent in adults.
CONCLUSIONS
The shift from male predominance in childhood to female predominance in adults suggests differences in genetic and environmental etiology in CVID and has consequences for pathophysiologic studies. We confirm the high frequency of respiratory infections at presentation, but also show a high incidence of severe bacterial infections such as sepsis and meningitis, and immune dysregulation features including lymphoproliferative, gastrointestinal and autoimmune manifestations. Early detection of CVID may be improved by screening for antibody deficiency in patients with these manifestations.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Autoimmunity; Bronchiectasis; Child; Common Variable Immunodeficiency; Humans; Incidence; Lymphadenopathy; Meningitis; Phenotype; Respiratory Tract Infections; Sex Factors
PubMed: 33833753
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.620709 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Chronic 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. Aural toileting is a term describing a number of processes for manually cleaning the ear. Techniques used may include dry mopping (with cotton wool or tissue paper), suction clearance (typically under a microscope) or irrigation (using manual or automated syringing). Dry mopping may be effective in removing mucopurulent discharge. Compared to irrigation or microsuction it is less effective in removing epithelial debris or thick pus. Aural toileting can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or topical antiseptics.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of aural toilet procedures 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 people (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. We included any aural toileting method as the intervention, at any frequency and for any duration. The comparisons were aural toileting compared with a) placebo or no intervention, and b) any other aural toileting method. We analysed trials in which background treatments were used in both arms (e.g. topical antiseptics or topical antibiotics) separately.
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; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes were hearing, serious complications, and the adverse events of ear bleeding and dizziness/vertigo/balance problems.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies with a total of 431 participants (465 ears), reporting on two comparisons. Two studies included only children with CSOM in the community (351 participants) and the other study (80 participants) included children and adults with chronic ear discharge for at least six weeks. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of health-related quality of life, ear pain or the adverse event of ear bleeding. Daily aural toileting (dry mopping) versus no treatment Two studies (351 children; 370 ears) compared daily dry mopping with no treatment. Neither study presented results for resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks or between two to four weeks. For resolution of ear discharge after four weeks, one study reported the results per person. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference at 16 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.72; 1 study; 217 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. No results were reported for the adverse events of dizziness, vertigo or balance problems. Only one study 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 reported hearing, but the results were presented by treatment outcome rather than by treatment group so it is not possible to determine whether there is a difference between the two groups. Daily aural toileting versus single aural toileting on top of topical ciprofloxacin One study (80 participants; 95 ears) compared daily aural toileting (suction) with administration of topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) ear drops in a clinic, to a single aural toileting (suction) episode followed by daily self-administered topical antibiotic drops, in participants of all ages. We are unsure whether there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 1 study; 80 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge at between two to four weeks. The results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were presented by ear, not person, and could not be adjusted to by person. One patient in the group with single aural toileting and self administration of topical antibiotic ear drops reported the adverse event of dizziness, which the authors attributed to the use of cold topical ciprofloxacin. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.95; 1 study; 80 participants, very low-certainty). No results were reported for the other adverse events of vertigo or balance problems, or for serious complications. The authors only reported qualitatively that there was no difference between the two groups in hearing results (very low-certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are very uncertain whether or not treatment with aural toileting is effective in resolving ear discharge in people with CSOM, due to a lack of data and the poor quality of the available evidence. We also remain uncertain about other outcomes, including adverse events, as these were not well reported. Similarly, we are very uncertain whether daily suction clearance, followed by antibiotic ear drops administered at a clinic, is better than a single episode of suction clearance followed by self-administration of topical antibiotic ear drops.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Child; Chronic Disease; Ciprofloxacin; Humans; Hygiene; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Time Factors
PubMed: 32926406
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013057.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), 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. 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 effectiveness of antibiotics versus antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, 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 1 April 2019.
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 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. Two comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) topical antibiotics or b) systemic antibiotics. Within each comparison we separated where both groups of patients had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toilet and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).
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; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified seven studies (935 participants) across four comparisons with antibiotics compared against acetic acid, aluminium acetate, boric acid and povidone-iodine. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of quality of life or serious complications. A. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones or aminoglycosides) It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge with acetic acid compared with aminoglycosides at one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.08; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. It was very uncertain if there was more ear pain, discomfort or local irritation with acetic acid or topical antibiotics due to the low numbers of participants reporting events (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.34; 2 RCTs; 189 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No differences between groups were reported narratively for hearing (quinolones) or suspected ototoxicity (aminoglycosides) (very low-certainty evidence). B. Topical antiseptic (aluminium acetate) versus topical antibiotics No results for the one study comparing topical antibiotics with aluminium acetate could be used in the review. C. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones) One study reported more participants with resolution of ear discharge when using topical antibiotics (quinolones) compared with boric acid ear drops at between one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.92; 1 study; 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that one additional person will have resolution of ear discharge for every five people receiving topical antibiotics (compared with boric acid) at two weeks. No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. There was a bigger improvement in hearing in the topical antibiotic group compared to the topical antiseptic group (mean difference (MD) 2.79 decibels (dB), 95% CI 0.48 to 5.10; 1 study; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence) but this difference may not be clinically significant. There may be more ear pain, discomfort or irritation with boric acid compared with quinolones (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 2 studies; 510 participants; low-certainty evidence). Suspected ototoxicity was not reported. D. Topical antiseptic (povidone-iodine) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones) It is 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 patients developed ototoxic effects (very low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of ear discharge beyond four weeks, or ear pain, discomfort or irritation, were reported. E. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) + aural toileting versus topical + systemic antibiotics (quinolones) One study reported that participants receiving topical and oral antibiotics had less resolution of ear discharge compared with acetic acid ear drops and aural toileting (suction clearance every two days) at one month (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; 100 participants). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks, ear pain, discomfort or irritation, hearing or suspected ototoxicity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of CSOM with topical antibiotics (quinolones) probably 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. Adverse events were not well reported.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31902139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013056.pub2