Literature DB >> 15492164

Randomized, placebo-controlled evaluation of Cerumenex and Murine earwax removal products.

Peter S Roland1, Debbie Anderson Eaton, Robert D Gross, G Michael Wall, Peter J Conroy, Rekha Garadi, Laura Lafontaine, Susan Potts, Gail Hogg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 2 ceruminolytic products, Cerumenex Eardrops (Purdue Frederick Company, Norwalk, Conn) and Murine Ear Drops (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill), in subjects with partial or complete occlusion of the ear canal due to cerumen.
DESIGN: Randomized, subject- and observer-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.
SETTING: Corporate research clinic. PARTICIPANTS: From among 230 volunteers screened, 74 subjects (age, 22-66 [mean, 45] years) were enrolled in the study. Participants had baseline occlusion levels of mild (n = 10), moderate (n = 26), or complete (n = 38) impairment of tympanic membrane visualization.
INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: Cerumenex (10% triethanolamine polypeptide oleate-condensate), Murine (6.5% carbamide peroxide), and a placebo, BSS Sterile Irrigating Solution (Alcon Laboratories Inc, Ft Worth, Tex). The test medication was instilled into 1 occluded ear for up to two 15-minute applications. Following the treatment, the subject's ear was irrigated with 50 mL of lukewarm water delivered at low pressure via a WaterPik irrigator equipped with a Grossan irrigator tip. Main Outcome Measure The degree of occlusion, measured against a previously established 4-point scale, was assessed and recorded at baseline and after each instillation and irrigation procedure.
RESULTS: Neither Cerumenex nor Murine was superior to saline placebo. By the end of treatment, 29.2%, 15.4%, and 41.7% of subjects treated with Cerumenex, Murine, and placebo, respectively, experienced resolution of cerumen occlusion. These values were not statistically significantly different from one another.
CONCLUSION: The currently marketed ceruminolytic products, Cerumenex and Murine, are no more effective than a saline placebo in removing earwax.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15492164     DOI: 10.1001/archotol.130.10.1175

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0886-4470


  6 in total

Review 1.  Ear wax.

Authors:  George G G Browning
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2008-01-25

Review 2.  [Complication rate of out-patient removal of ear wax: systematic review of the literature].

Authors:  G Schmiemann; C Kruschinski
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 3.  Ear wax.

Authors:  Tony Wright
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2015-03-04

4.  Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a novel product for the removal of impacted human cerumen.

Authors:  Douglas Fullington; Jenny Song; Antionette Gilles; Xiaowen Guo; Waley Hua; C Eric Anderson; Joseph Griffin
Journal:  BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord       Date:  2017-06-02

Review 5.  Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

Authors:  Ksenia Aaron; Tess E Cooper; Laura Warner; Martin J Burton
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-07-25

Review 6.  WITHDRAWN: Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

Authors:  Martin J Burton; Carolyn Doree
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-07-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.