• C A Macfadyen, J M Acuin, and C Gamble.
• Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, International Health Research Group, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, UK L3 5QA. carolynm@liv.ac.uk
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19; 2005 (4): CD004618CD004618.

BackgroundChronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) causes ear discharge and impairs hearing.ObjectivesAssess topical antibiotics (excluding steroids) for treating chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations (CSOM).Search StrategyThe Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1951 to March 2005), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2005), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2005), AMED (1985 to March 2005), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2005), OLDMEDLINE (January 1958 to December 1965), PREMEDLINE, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and article references.Selection CriteriaRandomised controlled trials; any topical antibiotic without steroids, versus no drug treatment, aural toilet, topical antiseptics, or other topical antibiotics excluding steroids; participants with CSOM.Data Collection And AnalysisOne author assessed eligibility and quality, extracted data, entered data onto RevMan; two authors inputted where there was ambiguity. We contacted investigators for clarifications.Main ResultsFourteen trials (1,724 analysed participants or ears). CSOM definitions and severity varied; some included otitis externa, mastoid cavity infections and other diagnoses. Methodological quality varied; generally poorly reported, follow-up usually short, handling of bilateral disease inconsistent. Topical quinolone antibiotics were better than no drug treatment at clearing discharge at one week: relative risk (RR) was 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.59) (two trials, N = 197). No statistically significant difference was found between quinolone and non-quinolone antibiotics (without steroids) at weeks one or three: pooled RR were 0.89 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.32) (three trials, N = 402), and 0.97 (0.54 to 1.72) (two trials, N = 77), respectively. A positive trend in favour of quinolones seen at two weeks was largely due to one trial and not significant after accounting for heterogeneity: pooled RR 0.65 (0.46 to 0.92) (four trials, N = 276) using the fixed-effect model, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.17) accounting for heterogeneity with the random-effects model. Topical quinolones were significantly better at curing CSOM than antiseptics: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67) at one week (three trials, N = 263), and 0.58 (0.47 to 0.72) at two to four weeks (four trials, N = 519). Meanwhile, non-quinolone antibiotics (without steroids) compared to antiseptics were more mixed, changing over time (four trials, N = 254). Evidence regarding safety was generally weak.Authors' ConclusionsTopical quinolone antibiotics can clear aural discharge better than no drug treatment or topical antiseptics; non-quinolone antibiotic effects (without steroids) versus no drug or antiseptics are less clear. Studies were also inconclusive regarding any differences between quinolone and non-quinolone antibiotics, although indirect comparisons suggest a benefit of topical quinolones cannot be ruled out. Further trials should clarify non-quinolone antibiotic effects, assess longer-term outcomes (for resolution, healing, hearing, or complications) and include further safety assessments, particularly to clarify the risks of ototoxicity and whether quinolones may result in fewer adverse events than other topical treatments.

21 keywords...

hide…