Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 2025

Trans-Tympanic Drug Delivery for the Treatment of Ototoxicity
Published on: March 16, 2018
Systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media
Lee Yee Chong1, Karen Head1, Katie E Webster2
1Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Background:
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), 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. Systemic antibiotics are commonly used to treat people with CSOM. This is the first update to the review published in 2021, and is one of a suite of seven Cochrane reviews evaluating the effects of non-surgical interventions for CSOM.
Objectives:
To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics compared to placebo, no treatment, or another systemic antibiotic in people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).
Search Methods:
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose, and Throat Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two clinical trials registers to 15 June 2022.
Selection Criteria:
We included randomised controlled trials comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) to placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving people 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 received it.
Data Collection And Analysis:
We used standard Cochrane methods. 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)/discomfort/local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications, and ototoxicity measured in several ways. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
Main Results:
This update found three new studies (390 participants). Overall, we included 21 studies (2525 participants). We report four core comparisons below, and describe an additional four in the Results section of the review. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain from a single study if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 1 study, 33 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks, or health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. The study did not report ear pain and suspected ototoxicity. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Seven studies assessed this comparison, with five presenting usable data. There may be little or no difference between oral ciprofloxacin and placebo/no treatment (with all participants receiving ciprofloxacin ear drops) in the resolution of ear discharge between one and two weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), with similar results at two to four weeks. One study reported outcomes beyond four weeks, but the results were not usable. No studies reported health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications, and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (plus topical antibiotics and topical steroids in both study arms) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus topical 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 two to four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 1 study, 30 participants). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if co-trimoxazole improved resolution of ear discharge after four weeks compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence). From the narrative reporting of one study, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing, or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). 4. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (plus topical antiseptics in both study arms) One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms, and found no difference in the 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; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other outcomes. Limitations include heterogeneity in the duration and definition of CSOM used by studies included in the review. Although we planned subgroup analyses for different participant characteristics, treatment duration, and spectrum of antibiotic activity, we did not perform these analyses due to lack of available data.
Authors' Conclusions:
The evidence available to determine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge in people with CSOM is limited. We are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics, when used alone (with or without aural toileting (ear cleaning)), are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an intervention such as topical antibiotics, there may be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics; it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic is more effective than another. Harmful effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the included studies.
Insights
Systemic antibiotics show very uncertain effectiveness for chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) ear discharge resolution. Evidence suggests little to no difference when added to topical treatments, with limited data on harms.
Area of Science:
- Otolaryngology
- Infectious Diseases
- Pharmacology
Background:
- Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a persistent middle ear infection causing ear discharge and hearing loss.
- Systemic antibiotics are a common treatment, but their efficacy in CSOM requires rigorous evaluation.
- This review is an update, part of a series assessing non-surgical interventions for CSOM.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic antibiotics for CSOM.
- To assess outcomes including ear discharge resolution, quality of life, pain, hearing, and complications.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted, searching multiple databases up to June 2022.
- Included RCTs compared systemic antibiotics (oral/injection) to placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics in patients with CSOM.
- Primary outcomes were resolution of ear discharge, health-related quality of life, and ear pain; secondary outcomes included hearing and complications.
Main Results:
- Evidence is very uncertain regarding the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics alone versus placebo for ear discharge resolution.
- When systemic antibiotics are added to topical treatments, there may be little to no difference in discharge resolution (low-certainty evidence).
- Data on quality of life, hearing, complications, and harms were limited or very uncertain across comparisons.
Conclusions:
- The available evidence for systemic antibiotic efficacy in resolving CSOM ear discharge is limited and uncertain.
- Systemic antibiotics, alone or as adjuncts to topical therapy, show minimal to no clear benefit for discharge resolution.
- Further research is needed, particularly on the comparative effectiveness of different antibiotic classes and potential harms.
More Related Videos
07:06Endaural Endoscopic Atticoantrotomy Retrograde Mastoidectomy using a Constant Suction Bone-drilling Technique
Published on: May 23, 2021
06:06Adjunctive Diode Laser Therapy and Probiotic Lactobacillus Therapy in the Treatment of Periodontitis and Peri-Implant Disease
Published on: May 9, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Tonsillitis II: Management
Chronic Pharyngitis
Etiology
It often arises from persistent viral or bacterial infections affecting sinuses and tonsils.
Additional contributing factors include inadequate dental hygiene, mouth breathing, recurring tonsillitis, allergic rhinitis, laryngopharyngeal reflux, and exposure to smoke, chemicals, and other environmental pollutants. Allergic reactions to pollen, mold, and pet dander, chronic cough, excessive voice usage,...
Pneumonia IV: Management
Bacterial Pneumonia Treatment
For bacterial pneumonia, antibiotics serve as the cornerstone of therapy. Initial treatment often begins with empirical antibiotics, tailored to the anticipated causative organism and adjusted based on culture results. Key antibiotic choices include:
Combined Effects of Drugs: Synergism
Such synergistic combinations...
Acute Pharyngitis
Acute pharyngitis is the inflammation of the back of the throat (pharynx), commonly resulting in a sore throat. It is a frequently encountered condition that prompts individuals to seek medical advice.
Classification
Acute pharyngitis can be categorized based on its underlying cause:
Tonsillitis I: Introduction
Etiology
Three primary contributing factors have been identified.