If you're a parent, there's a good chance you know about middle ear
infections – infections in the space behind the eardrum. Or if you don't
yet, you soon will.
The painful condition, known medically as
"otitis media", strikes virtually all kids at some point in their
childhood. But it is especially common in babies and toddlers,
particularly those attending childcare. Peaking in the cooler months, it
makes them unwell and irritable – often with a fever – and can affect
their hearing.
Since the infection is usually caused by bacteria, antibiotics became the standard treatment.
In
fact, acute middle ear infection (where the symptoms come on suddenly)
is the most common reason antibiotics are prescribed for children, says
Harvey Coates, clinical professor in ear, nose and throat medicine at
the University of Western Australia.
But whether or not that's appropriate is controversial.
Over
the past 30 years, expert opinion has swung against doctors giving
antibiotics for this problem, and parents have been urged not to
pressure GPs to prescribe them.
Now two papers published in a leading medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, have raised the issue once again.
An
editorial commenting on the studies says they are high quality and
provide "the best evidence yet" that toddlers who have been properly
diagnosed with the condition recover more quickly when treated with
antibiotics.
So what's a parent of a sick child to make of it all?
Watch and wait
When
your toddler's ear infection makes them irritable and feverish – and
keeps you awake at night – it's perhaps understandable you might see
antibiotics as a "quick fix".
But concerns antibiotics might not
be the most appropriate response have been enough to trigger education
campaigns aimed at parents.
"Parents should not be concerned if
the doctor does not prescribe antibiotics or suggests they wait and see
what happens before having a script dispensed," stated a 2009 press
release from the NPS, a government-funded organisation that aims to help
people use medicines wisely.
"In some cases, such as babies,
antibiotics will be necessary, but most ear infections will get better
without specific treatment," the release said.
"Pain will usually subside within one or two days, in which case antibiotics would not be needed."
The
advice reflects a treatment policy known as "watchful waiting", which
was endorsed for selected children by the American Academy of Pediatrics
in 2004 and also underlies treatment guidelines issued to Australian
GPs. It involves treating symptoms with paracetamol while observing
recovery from the infection before giving antibiotics.
Opinions divided
Watchful
waiting stems from on a solid body of research dating back to the
1980s, says Dr Hasantha Gunasekera, a general paediatrician at the
Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Westmead.
This research
clearly shows the benefit from antibiotics for most children with acute
middle ear infections is "very small", Gunasekera says – around 12 to 24
hours less pain or fever. What's more this benefit is generally seen in
only around one in 10 or so children treated with the drugs.
"It's
not one of those conditions that has a very rapid response to treatment
and if you don't treat it's catastrophic. It's a condition where
antibiotics have a very weak effect," he says.
This weak benefit
has to be balanced against the cost and inconvenience to the family of
buying and administering antibiotics, as well as the side effects, which
may include a rash, diarrhoea and vomiting, he says.
Research in
the past has shown the benefits of antibiotics are slightly greater in
very young children, in children with infections in both ears, and in
children whose eardrums have burst from the infection. But, even then,
they are still benefits Gunasekera describes as "modest".
His view
is that the two studies published in January this year essentially
confirm this modest benefit in younger children. They focused on
children aged six to 23 months and six to 35 months, respectively.
In
both studies, "most children given the placebo [non-active treatment]
still got better, it just took a little longer," he said.
Other experts like Boston University paediatrics professor Jerome Klein,
however, have described the children who took antibiotics in the
studies as "substantially improved" compared to those who did not.
The different perspectives may stem from what Gunasekera describes as "a disagreement in the medical fraternity".
"There's a group of doctors who are pro-antibiotics," he says.
"And
then there are others who are not so much anti-antibiotics, but [they
are] quite happy to just observe first before going down the antibiotic
path".
The role of parents
What's this got to do with parents anyway? Isn't it doctors who decide how to treat sick children, not their parents?
Yes, but it's widely recognised parents play a significant role in influencing doctors' prescribing habits, Gunasekera says.
This is one reason prescribing rates are so high, despite what the treatment guidelines say.
"The
argument [given by doctors who succumb to pressure from parents] is
that if the child is sick and crying and irritable it's very hard to do
nothing. But what we're recommending is not 'doing nothing'. We're
recommending you treat the symptoms – the pain and the fever.
"What
I say to parents when I'm managing the condition is: 'If I was to treat
your child there's a chance they'd get better one day sooner but the
trouble is there's also a very similar chance they'll get some problem
like a rash or diarrhoea'."
If a discussion follows, some parents
are also told there are broader benefits to limiting antibiotic use to
cases that really need them. This is because overuse of antibiotics is
known to lead to more bacteria becoming resistant to the drugs, making
illnesses harder to treat – a major public health concern worldwide.
Gunasekera
believes the message not to automatically expect antibiotics for a
child with an acute middle ear infection is still valid.
"I think it's perfectly justified to still use the watchful waiting approach, even with this new research," he says.
Immediate treatment with antibiotics might be more warranted however, he says, if:
- Your
child has a history of recurrent infections (more than six in six
months) or severe infections (the ear drum bursts or there is ongoing
release of fluid from the ear drum) that started before they were three
months old. The risk of long term hearing problems is significantly
greater in these children.
- Your family has difficulty accessing
health care – say, because you live in a very remote area. If a child is
not given antibiotics initially but does not seem to be getting better
in a few days time, you need to be able to bring them back so a doctor
can review them.
The bottom line
While experts
disagree about whether or not it's necessary to treat middle ear
infections, they do agree if you suspect your child has one, it's
important to take them to a doctor.
The signs of a middle ear infection may include:
- fever
- earache (or pulling at the ears)
- irritability
- being generally unwell
- sometimes with diarrhoea and vomiting
- if the eardrum has burst there may be a discharge of fluid from the ear