-
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Sep 2023Peritonsillar abscess is a localised infection in the peritonsillar space. Pus from the abscess can contain anaerobes. Many clinicians prescribe metronidazole in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonsillar abscess is a localised infection in the peritonsillar space. Pus from the abscess can contain anaerobes. Many clinicians prescribe metronidazole in addition to penicillin, but evidence to support this is limited. This review assessed the evidence of benefit of metronidazole for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted of the literature and databases including Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed and Cochrane library. Search terms included all variations of peritonsillar abscess, penicillin and metronidazole.
RESULTS
Three randomised, control trials were included. All studies assessed the clinical outcomes after treatment for peritonsillar abscess, including recurrence rate, length of hospital stay and symptom improvement. There was no evidence to suggest additional benefit with metronidazole, with studies suggesting increased side effects.
CONCLUSION
Evidence does not support the addition of metronidazole in first-line management of peritonsillar abscess. Further trials to establish optimum dose and duration schedules of oral phenoxymethylpenicillin would benefit clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Peritonsillar Abscess; Metronidazole; Penicillins; Penicillin V; Drainage; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37194922
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215123000804 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Middle Aged; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tonsillitis; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32356360
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008268.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Peritonsillar abscess is a common infection presenting as a collection of pus in the peritonsillar area. The condition is characterised by a severe sore throat,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonsillar abscess is a common infection presenting as a collection of pus in the peritonsillar area. The condition is characterised by a severe sore throat, difficulty in swallowing and pain on swallowing, fever and malaise, and trismus. Needle aspiration and incision and drainage are the two main treatment modalities currently used in the treatment of this condition. The effectiveness of one versus the other has not been clearly demonstrated and remains an area of debate.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and risks of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess in older children (eight years of age or older), adolescents and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 7); 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 25 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing needle aspiration with incision and drainage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were recurrence rate (proportion of patients needing repeat intervention) and adverse effects associated with the intervention. Secondary outcomes were time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies (674 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear in all of the included studies. All studies compared needle aspiration to incision and drainage.All but one of the 11 studies reported on the primary outcome of recurrence. When we pooled data from the 10 studies the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage: risk ratio (RR) 3.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63 to 8.59; 612 participants). We detected moderate heterogeneity in this analysis (I = 48%). In interpreting the pooled result it is important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality.None of the other outcomes (adverse effects of the intervention, time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores) were consistently measured across all studies.Only three studies reported on adverse effects/events associated with the intervention and only one such event in a single patient was reported (post-procedure bleeding following incision and drainage: 1/28, 3.6%) (very low-quality evidence). Time to resumption of normal diet was compared in two studies; neither found an obvious difference between needle aspiration and incision and drainage (very low-quality evidence).Only three studies stated that they would report complications of the disease process. In these three studies, the only complication reported was admission to hospital for dehydration in two patients who underwent incision and drainage (2/13, 6.7%). Symptom scores were measured in four studies; three evaluated pain using different scales and one other symptoms. The data could not be pooled in a meta-analysis. Two studies evaluating procedural pain reported this to be lower in the needle aspiration groups. One study found comparable rates of pain resolution at five days post-intervention between groups. The quality of the evidence for symptom scores was very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although a number of studies have sought to evaluate whether or not needle aspiration or incision and drainage is more effective in patients with peritonsillar abscess, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain. Very low-quality evidence suggests that incision and drainage may be associated with a lower chance of recurrence than needle aspiration. There is some very low-quality evidence to suggest that needle aspiration is less painful.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Drainage; Eating; Humans; Needles; Peritonsillar Abscess; Recurrence; Retreatment; Suction; Symptom Assessment; Time Factors
PubMed: 28009937
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006287.pub4