Ciprofloxacin 0.3% / Dexamethasone 0.1% ear drops
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Ciprofloxacin + Dexamethasone
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
6 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Ciprofloxacin + Dexamethasone on the MHRA register
Ciprofloxacin 0.3% / Dexamethasone 0.1% ear drops
Ciprofloxacin 0.3% / Dexamethasone 0.1% ear drops
Ciprofloxacin 0.3% / Dexamethasone 0.1% ear drops
This is the NHS Drug Tariff indicative price used for reimbursement purposes. It may not reflect the price paid by patients or pharmacies.
View full Drug TariffSource: NHS Drug Tariff via NHSBSA. Derived from dm+d VMPP (Virtual Medicinal Product Pack) pricing data. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 6 · Randomised trials: 4 · 2001–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Abiodun Adefurin, Helen Sammons, Évelyne Jacqz-Aigrain, et al.
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2011
- Anti-Bacterial Agents
- Chemistry, Pharmaceutical
- Ciprofloxacin
Jay S. Pepose, Arjun Ahuja, Wenlei Liu, et al.
American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2018
- Acute Disease
- Adenovirus Infections, Human
- Adenoviruses, Human
Andrzej Jakubowiak, Dominik Dytfeld, Kent A. Griffith, et al.
Blood, 2012
- Lenalidomide
- Anemia
- Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
Sagar Makwana, Viralkumar Patel, Shraddha Parmar
Results in Pharma Sciences, 2015
Y. Fouad, Mohamed Rabea, mohamed El-Anwar, et al.
Kasr Al Ainy Medical Journal, 2022
N. Mohan, V. Gupta, R. Tandon, et al.
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 2001
- Cataract Extraction
- Administration, Topical
- Anti-Infective Agents
Scott A. LeMaire, Lin Zhang, Wei Luo, et al.
JAMA Surgery, 2018
- Aortic Dissection
- Aorta, Thoracic
- Ciprofloxacin
Abrahamson CW, Landini AL, Stewart J, et al.
2025
- Laryngostenosis
- Tracheal Stenosis
- Ciprofloxacin
ObjectiveMultiple medical therapies exist to improve outcomes following surgical management of laryngotracheal stenosis. One method involves ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone (CPD) administration into the airway, although minimal information exists on this treatment. This scoping review evaluates the current literature to understand the potential utility of CPD after airway surgery.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science.Review methodsDatabases were searched according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were excluded if they did not administer CPD in the airway, were solely in vitro or animal studies, or lacked full text availability.ResultsFrom 1340 studies identified, seven met inclusion criteria, and one was added from manual searching. All eight articles were published between 2008 and 2025. Four described nebulized CPD, one discussed intratracheal drops, and three evaluated both. Four studies carefully evaluated CPD to assess efficacy and side effects across an aggregate of 167 pediatric and 53 adult patients. One group demonstrated fewer postoperative bronchoscopies and a shorter hospital stay after pediatric open airway surgery. Another study showed fewer granulation tissue events and earlier decannulation for pediatric tracheostomy patients. Side effects were infrequent, and three of the four groups reported no adverse events. In the fourth study, 4.5% of surveyed pediatric otolaryngologists observed a side effect from CPD.ConclusionAlthough there is a paucity of literature regarding the safety and efficacy of CPD use in the airway, the available data suggest low risks and potential benefits. Further research is needed to assess safety, optimal treatment regimens, and efficacy of this off-label therapy.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
Ilyès Benhalima, Lola Jacquemont, Laurine Milière, et al.
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, 2024
In June 2022, a 73-year-old man with a history of laryngeal and esophageal carcinoma was admitted to the emergency unit with sudden fever, confusion, and general condition deterioration. Initial assessments showed a fever of 38.5 °C, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) at 209 mg/L, and a neutrophil count of 10.4 G/L, with negative results for urine analysis, blood cultures, and multiple infectious pathogens, including Legionella pneumophila, pneumococcal antigen, and SARS-CoV-2. Computed tomography (CT) scans revealed no significant infectious focus. Empirical treatment with Ceftriaxone and Ciprofloxacin was initiated. Despite treatment, the patient’s condition remained unchanged, and a lumbar puncture revealed turbid cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with 14,300 white blood cells (WBC)/mm³, predominantly neutrophils, elevated proteins, and decreased glucose. Gram staining suggested Neisseria meningitidis, but further testing was necessary. Antibiotic therapy was switched to Cefotaxime and Dexamethasone, and the patient was transferred to the Tropical and Infectious Disease Unit. Multiplex PCR assays and additional CSF tests were negative for common pathogens. Sequencing of 16S ribosomal RNA identified Gemella sp. The patient’s condition improved with continued Cefotaxime treatment, and he recovered without neurological sequelae. Subsequent dental CT revealed poor dental hygiene but no signs of osteo-meningeal breach or bone lysis. A literature review identified 22 reported cases of central nervous system (CNS) infections caused by various Gemella species from 1980 to 2022. Of these, 59% presented with meningitis, and 41% had additional encephalitis or brain abscesses. Complete recovery occurred in 77% of cases, with 9% resulting in neurological damage and another 9% in fatal outcomes. Relapses occurred in 14% of the cases. The review highlighted that CNS infections by Gemella spp. primarily affect immunocompromised adults with ENT (ear nose throat) or neurological breaches, although some cases involved healthy individuals. This case underscores the diagnostic challenges posed by uncommon pathogens like Gemella and highlights the utility of molecular microbiology in identifying causative agents, thus guiding appropriate treatment. The patient’s history of ENT and esophageal cancers, along with recent radiotherapy and chemotherapy, likely contributed to the infection’s development. The case emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation in febrile confusion cases and the potential role of Gemella spp. in CNS infections.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
H. Khan, A. Amitava
Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2007
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.