-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality....
BACKGROUND
Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Possibly due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2004. Given the clinical importance, an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants from birth to 72 hours of life at randomisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (865 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence according to GRADE was very low. The included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct any meta-analyses due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared ampicillin plus gentamicin with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin plus tazobactam with amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with piperacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin with ampicillin plus amikacin; and one trial compared ceftazidime with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Large RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in early-onset neonatal sepsis with low risk of bias are warranted.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Cause of Death; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33998666
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013837.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality....
BACKGROUND
Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units, and observational studies in high-income countries suggest that 83% to 94% of newborns treated with antibiotics for suspected sepsis have negative blood cultures. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2005. There is a need for an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants older than 72 hours of life at randomisation, suspected or diagnosed with neonatal sepsis, meningitis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, or necrotising enterocolitis. We excluded trials that assessed treatment of fungal infections.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (580 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias, and had very low-certainty evidence. The five included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared cefazolin plus amikacin with vancomycin plus amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with flucloxacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared cloxacillin plus amikacin with cefotaxime plus gentamicin; one trial compared meropenem with standard care (ampicillin plus gentamicin or cefotaxime plus gentamicin); and one trial compared vancomycin plus gentamicin with vancomycin plus aztreonam. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in late-onset neonatal sepsis with low risks of bias are warranted.
Topics: Amikacin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Aztreonam; Bias; Cefazolin; Clavulanic Acid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Floxacillin; Gentamicins; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ticarcillin; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33998665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013836.pub2 -
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related... Aug 2021Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after hip and knee arthroplasty is a leading cause of revision surgery, inferior function, complications, and death. The...
BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after hip and knee arthroplasty is a leading cause of revision surgery, inferior function, complications, and death. The administration of topical, intrawound vancomycin (vancomycin powder) has appeared promising in some studies, but others have found it ineffective in reducing infection risk; for that reason, a high-quality systematic review of the best-available evidence is needed.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Does topical vancomycin (vancomycin powder) reduce PJI risk in hip and knee arthroplasty? (2) Does topical vancomycin lead to an increased risk of complications after hip and knee arthroplasty?
METHODS
A search of Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases as of June 2020 was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing topical vancomycin in addition to standard infection prevention regimens (such as routine perioperative intravenous antibiotics) with standard regimens only in primary hip and knee arthroplasty were identified. Patients 18 years or older with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included. No restrictions on maximal loss to follow-up or PJI definition were imposed. Studies were excluded if they included patients with a history of septic arthritis, used an antibiotic other than vancomycin or a different route of administration for the intervention, performed additional interventions that differed between groups, or omitted a control group. A total of 2408 studies were screened, resulting in nine eligible studies reviewing 3371 patients who received topical vancomycin (vancomycin powder) during a primary THA or TKA and 2884 patients who did not receive it. Groups were comparable with respect to duration of follow-up and loss to follow-up when reported. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, showing moderate-to-high quality for the included studies. The risks of PJI and overall complications in the topical vancomycin group were compared with those in the control group.
RESULTS
One of nine studies found a lower risk of PJI after primary THA or TKA, while eight did not, with odds ratios that broadly bracketed the line of no difference (range of odds ratios across the nine studies 0.09 to 1.97). In the six studies where overall complications could be compared between topical vancomycin and control groups in primary THA or TKA, there was no difference in overall complication risks with vancomycin (range of ORs across the six studies 0.48 to 0.94); however, we caution that these studies were underpowered to detect differences in the types of uncommon complications associated with vancomycin use (such as allergy, ototoxicity, and nephrotoxicity).
CONCLUSION
In the absence of clear evidence of efficacy, and without a sufficiently large evidence base reporting on safety-related endpoints, topical vancomycin (vancomycin powder) should not be used in routine primary THA and TKA. Adequately powered, multicenter, prospective trials demonstrating clear reductions in infection risk and large registry-driven audits of safety-related endpoints are required before the widespread use of topical vancomycin can be recommended.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, therapeutic study.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Aged; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Female; Humans; Joint Prosthesis; Male; Middle Aged; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Treatment Outcome; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33929342
DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001777 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022Platinum-based chemotherapeutics play an important role in the treatment of cancer at different levels and are the most cited ototoxic agents when scientific evidence is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Platinum-based chemotherapeutics play an important role in the treatment of cancer at different levels and are the most cited ototoxic agents when scientific evidence is analyzed.
OBJECTIVE
To present scientific evidence based on a systematic literature review, PRISMA, in order to systematize information on the ototoxic effects of using antineoplastic drugs.
METHODS
For the selection of studies, the combination based on the Medical Subject Heading Terms (MeSH) was used. The Medline (Pubmed), LILACS, SciELO, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE and BIREME databases were used, without restriction of language, period, and location. Evaluation of the quality of the articles was carried out, which included articles with a minimum score of 6 in the modified scale of the literature. The designs of the selected studies were descriptive, cohort, and cross-sectional, which were related to the research objective.
RESULTS
Three articles were included in this systematic review. The ototoxicity caused by cisplatin alone varied from 45% to 83.3%, while that caused by the use associated with carboplatin varied from 16.6% to 75%. There was a significant variation in the cumulative doses of these antineoplastic agents, both in isolated and in combination. Auditory changes, especially at high frequencies, were evident after completion of treatment.
CONCLUSION
Auditory changes after the use of platinum-based antineoplastic drugs were found, however, there was an important heterogeneity regarding the frequency of ototoxicity and the cumulative dose of the drugs used.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Cross-Sectional Studies; Hearing Loss; Humans; Ototoxicity
PubMed: 33757754
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.02.008 -
The Journal of International Advanced... Jan 2021Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as hearing loss of ≥30 dB in one or both ears, developing within 3 days, affecting ≥3 contiguous frequencies. It...
Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as hearing loss of ≥30 dB in one or both ears, developing within 3 days, affecting ≥3 contiguous frequencies. It is rare in children, but if untreated can cause significant morbidity. During the critical developmental period, it may cause lifelong social, behavioral, and mental sequelae. Currently, little guidance exists on prognosis and management within a pediatric population. A systematic literature review of pediatric SSNHL on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. A total of 620 papers met the Medical Subject Headings criteria, of which 14 met analysis criteria-13 were level 4 and 1 was level 2b evidence. A population of 732 individuals was analyzed. Most reported cases of pediatric SSNHL were idiopathic. Other etiologies included viral infection, trauma, ototoxic drugs, and structural abnormalities. Recovery was defined as any improvement in hearing after the initial loss, from "slight" to "complete." Recovery ranged from 20% to 100%, with a pooled rate of 56%. Systemic steroids were the mainstay of treatment, although salvage intratympanic steroid therapy had a role after the failure of systemic steroids. Children with bilateral SSNHL had poorer outcomes than those with unilateral loss, with 29% showing improvement. Two studies reported outcomes with no treatment, for which recovery rate was 7%. This analysis of SSNHL shows that 61% of children with unilateral and 29% of children with bilateral SSNHL demonstrate some recovery, a worse prognosis than adults. Multiple treatment regimens exist, although comparison is challenging owing to inconsistently reported improvement parameters.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Hearing; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Hearing Loss, Sudden; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33605224
DOI: 10.5152/iao.2020.8902 -
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 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... Aug 2020Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
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.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of adding a topical steroid to topical antibiotics in the treatment of 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 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 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.
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; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity.
MAIN RESULTS
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.
PubMed: 35659673
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013054.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin, or a combination of these, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. Unfortunately,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin, or a combination of these, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. Unfortunately, one of the most important adverse effects is the occurrence of hearing loss or ototoxicity. In an effort to prevent this ototoxicity, different platinum infusion durations have been studied. This review is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different durations of platinum infusion to prevent hearing loss or tinnitus, or both, in children with cancer. Secondary objectives were to assess possible effects of these infusion durations on: a) anti-tumour efficacy of platinum-based therapy, b) adverse effects other than hearing loss or tinnitus, and c) quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 14 November 2019), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 14 November 2019) and Embase (Ovid) (1980 to 14 November 2019). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and we assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (2009 up to and including 2019) and the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (2014 up to and including 2019). We scanned ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials (both searched on 4 November 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing different platinum infusion durations in children with cancer. Only the platinum infusion duration could differ between the treatment groups.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and GRADE assessment of included studies, and data extraction including adverse effects. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT and no CCTs; in this update no additional eligible studies were identified. The RCT (total number of children = 91) evaluated the use of a continuous cisplatin infusion (N = 43) versus a one-hour bolus cisplatin infusion (N = 48) in children with neuroblastoma. For the continuous infusion, cisplatin was administered on days one to five of the cycle, but it is unclear if the infusion duration was a total of five days. Risk of bias was present. Only results from shortly after induction therapy were provided. No clear evidence of a difference in hearing loss (defined as asymptomatic and symptomatic disease combined) between the different infusion durations was identified as results were imprecise (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 4.13, low-quality evidence). Although the numbers of children were not provided, it was stated that tumour response was equivalent in both treatment arms. With regard to adverse effects other than ototoxicity, we were only able to assess toxic deaths. Again, the confidence interval of the estimated effect was too wide to exclude differences between the treatment groups (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.31, low-quality evidence). No data were available for the other outcomes of interest (i.e. tinnitus, overall survival, event-free survival and quality of life) or for other (combinations of) infusion durations or other platinum analogues.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since only one eligible RCT evaluating the use of a continuous cisplatin infusion versus a one-hour bolus cisplatin infusion was found, and that had methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. For other (combinations of) infusion durations and other platinum analogues no eligible studies were identified. More high-quality research is needed.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carboplatin; Cisplatin; Disease-Free Survival; Hearing Loss; Humans; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tinnitus
PubMed: 31961948
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010885.pub5 -
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. Topical antiseptics, one of the possible treatments for CSOM, inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antiseptics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antiseptics or their application can cause irritation of the skin of the outer ear, manifesting as discomfort, pain or itching. Some antiseptics (such as alcohol) may have the potential to be toxic to the inner ear (ototoxicity), with a possible increased risk of causing sensorineural hearing loss, dizziness or tinnitus.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media.
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 the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. Two main comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) placebo or no intervention; and b) another topical antiseptic (e.g. topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of patients had received topical antiseptics a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of antibiotic treatment.
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
Five studies were included. It was not possible to calculate the total number of participants as two studies only provided the number of ears included in the study. A. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus placebo or no treatment (all patients had aural toileting) Three studies compared topical antiseptics with no treatment, with one study reporting results we could use (254 children; cluster-RCT). This compared the instillation of boric acid in alcohol drops versus no ear drops for one month (both arms used daily dry mopping). We made adjustments to the data to account for the intra-cluster correlation. The very low certainty of the evidence means it is uncertain whether or not treatment with an antiseptic leads to an increase in resolution of ear discharge at both four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.16; 174 participants) and at three to four months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47; 180 participants). This study narratively described no differences in suspected ototoxicity or hearing outcomes between the arms (very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported results for health-related quality of life, adverse effects or serious complications. B. Topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B Two studies compared different antiseptics but only one (93 participants), comparing a single instillation of boric acid powder with daily acetic acid ear drops, provided any information for this comparison. The very low certainty of the evidence means that it is uncertain whether more patients had resolution of ear discharge with boric acid powder compared to acetic acid at four weeks (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.53; 93 participants), or whether there was a difference between the arms with respect to ear discomfort due to the low number of reported events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.81; 93 participants). Narratively, the study reported no difference in hearing outcomes between the groups. None of the included studies reported any of the other primary or secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to paucity of the evidence and the very low certainty of that which is available the effectiveness and safety profile of antiseptics in the treatment of CSOM is uncertain.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chronic Disease; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31902140
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013055.pub2