A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to evaluate the role of tetrachlorodecaoxide in the management of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis

Review of preclinical studies on treatment of mucositis and associated pain

Oral mucositis is a significant problem in cancer patients treated with radiation or chemotherapy, often hindering definitive cancer treatment. For patients with oral mucositis, pain is the most distressing symptom, leading to loss of orofacial function and poor quality of life. While oral mucositis has been well-described, its pathophysiology is poorly understood. Oral health professionals treating patients with mucositis have almost no effective therapies to treat or prevent oral mucositis. The purpose of this review is to (1) describe the current preclinical models of oral mucositis and their contribution to the understanding of mucositis pathophysiology, (2) explore preclinical studies on therapies targeting mucositis and discuss the clinical trials that have resulted from these preclinical studies, and (3) describe the proposed pathophysiology of oral mucositis pain and preclinical modeling of oral mucositis pain.

Rapid healing of cutaneous leishmaniasis by high-frequency electrocauterization and hydrogel wound care with or without DAC N-055: a randomized controlled phase IIa trial in Kabul

Background

Anthroponotic cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) due to Leishmania (L.) tropica infection is a chronic, frequently disfiguring skin disease with limited therapeutic options. In endemic countries healing of ulcerative lesions is often delayed by bacterial and/or fungal infections. Here, we studied a novel therapeutic concept to prevent superinfections, accelerate wound closure, and improve the cosmetic outcome of ACL.

Methodology/Principal Findings

From 2004 to 2008 we performed a two-armed, randomized, double-blinded, phase IIa trial in Kabul, Afghanistan, with patients suffering from L. tropica CL. The skin lesions were treated with bipolar high-frequency electrocauterization (EC) followed by daily moist-wound-treatment (MWT) with polyacrylate hydrogel with (group I) or without (group II) pharmaceutical sodium chlorite (DAC N-055). Patients below age 5, with facial lesions, pregnancy, or serious comorbidities were excluded. The primary, photodocumented outcome was the time needed for complete lesion epithelialization. Biopsies for parasitological and (immuno)histopathological analyses were taken prior to EC (1^st), after wound closure (2^nd) and after 6 months (3^rd). The mean duration for complete wound closure was short and indifferent in group I (59 patients, 43.1 d) and II (54 patients, 42 d; p = 0.83). In patients with Leishmania-positive 2^nd biopsies DAC N-055 caused a more rapid wound epithelialization (37.2 d vs. 58.3 d; p = 0.08). Superinfections occurred in both groups at the same rate (8.8%). Except for one patient, reulcerations (10.2% in group I, 18.5% in group II; p = 0.158) were confined to cases with persistent high parasite loads after healing. In vitro, DAC N-055 showed a leishmanicidal effect on pro- and amastigotes.

Conclusions/Significance

Compared to previous results with intralesional antimony injections, the EC plus MWT protocol led to more rapid wound closure. The tentatively lower rate of relapses and the acceleration of wound closure in a subgroup of patients with parasite persistence warrant future studies on the activity of DAC N-055.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrails.gov NCT00947362

In many countries of the Middle East such as Afghanistan, cutaneous leishmaniasis is a highly prevalent, chronic and stigmatizing skin disease. Poor hygiene conditions frequently aggravate the lesions due to bacterial and fungal superinfections. Classical treatments with injections of pentavalent antimony are hampered by costs, side effects, resistance development, supply and manufactural quality problems. In the present study on Afghan patients with Leishmania tropica-induced skin lesions we evaluated the clinical effect of an initial removal of lesion tissue by electrocoagulation using a bipolar high-frequency electrosurgery instrument, followed by daily moist wound treatment with or without a preparation of pharmaceutical sodium chlorite (DAC N-055). DAC N-055 is a compound with anti-infective, immunomodulatory and tissue repair-promoting effects. Our analysis revealed that the carefully performed moist wound treatment led to a rapid healing of the wounds within an average period of 6 weeks, even in the absence of the sodium chlorite preparation. This is considerably faster than the time spans previously reported for local or systemic antimony treatment. We believe that the current standard for local care of chronic wounds should also be applied to Leishmania skin lesions. If combined with an initial single high-frequency electrocoagulation, it is a highly effective, inexpensive and well-tolerated treatment option for cutaneous leishmaniasis.

Systematic review of miscellaneous agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of the following agents for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis (OM): allopurinol, midline mucosa-sparing radiation blocks, payayor, pentoxifylline, timing of radiation therapy (RT) (morning versus late afternoon), pilocarpine, bethanechol, chewing gum, propantheline, and tetrachlorodecaoxide.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, no guideline possible.

RESULTS

A total of 32 papers across 10 interventions were examined. New suggestions were developed against the use of systemic pilocarpine administered orally for prevention of OM during RT in head and neck cancer patients and in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy, with or without total body irradiation, prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A suggestion was also made against the use of systemic pentoxifylline administered orally for the prevention of OM in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. No guideline was possible for any other agent reviewed due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the agents reviewed was determined to be effective for the prevention or treatment of OM. Two agents, pilocarpine and pentoxifylline, were determined to be ineffective, in the populations listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on other interventions.

Cancer treatment-induced mucositis pain: strategies for assessment and management

Mucositis pain is a major clinical problem associated with cancer treatment. Mucosal tissue injury is a dose-limiting side effect and also limits nutritional intake and oral function, resulting in weight loss and nutritional deficits for many patients. The pathophysiology of mucositis is thought to be a complex array of cytokine-mediated events, which begins with mucosal atrophy and eventually leads to the painful ulceration of the mucosa. This article reviews current research related to pain management for mucositis. Effective treatment for mucositis pain must be targeted at the various factors involved in the pain experience. Although a number of interventions aimed to prevent and treat mucositis have been studied, there is little evidence to recommend any one treatment modality. While current strategies for pain management rely on general treatment for acute pain, research developments are aimed at targeting the specific receptors and enzymes involved in mucositis. As these breakthroughs become available clinically, thorough assessment and timely directed interventions must be implemented in order to limit patient distress from mucositis. This article presents an assessment tool specific to mucositis pain, including physical, functional, and pain parameters.

WF10 stimulates NK cell cytotoxicity by increasing LFA-1-mediated adhesion to tumor cells

The redox-active chlorite-based drug WF10 (Immunokine) was shown to have modulatory effects on both the innate and adaptive immune system in vitro and in vivo. Animal studies suggest that WF10 enhances immunity against tumors. One possible explanation for such an effect is that WF10 stimulates natural killer cell cytotoxicity against malignant cells. Here, we show that WF10 regulates human NK cell cytotoxicity in a time-dependent manner, following an S-shaped kinetic with an initial stimulation of activity followed by a decrease in activity relative to the untreated controls. WF10 does not activate NK cells on its own but co-stimulates NK cell activation mediated by different activating receptors. This is mediated by enhancing NK cell adhesion to target cells through promoting the activation of the integrin LFA-1. These data demonstrate a direct effect of WF10 on the cytotoxicity of human NK cells.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 1 June 2010) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Risk of bias assessment was carried out on six domains. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed-effect models (less than 3 trials in each meta-analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two trials involving 1505 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three comparisons for mucositis treatment including two or more trials were: benzydamine HCl versus placebo, sucralfate versus placebo and low level laser versus sham procedure. Only the low level laser showed a reduction in severe mucositis when compared with the sham procedure, RR 5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30 to 12.13).Only 3 comparisons included more than one trial for pain control: patient controlled analgesia (PCA) compared to the continuous infusion method, therapist versus control, cognitive behaviour therapy versus control. There was no evidence of a difference in mean pain score between PCA and continuous infusion, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, mean difference 0.65 mg/hour (95% CI 0.09 to 1.20), and the duration of pain was less 1.9 days (95% CI 0.3 to 3.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Nonpharmacologic strategies for managing common chemotherapy adverse effects: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Adverse effects of chemotherapy can be severe and can have a significant impact on a person's quality of life. With chemotherapy treatment increasingly administered in the ambulatory setting, there is a need for patients to be informed about effective self-care strategies to manage treatment adverse effects. Advice for patients needs to be based on evidence. This systematic review provides an overview of the intervention research in this area as well as an effectiveness review of nonpharmacologic (self-care) strategies evaluated in high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

An extensive literature search was conducted to identify RCTs relating to self-care strategies for reducing nausea/vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue, hair loss, or mucositis. Relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 1980 and August 2007 were included. Study characteristics, results and methodologic quality were examined. High-quality RCTs were further analyzed to establish the effectiveness of specific self-care strategies.

RESULTS

The search identified 77 RCTs. Findings from RCTs of reasonable quality provide limited support for cognitive distraction, exercise, hypnosis, relaxation, and systematic desensitization to reduce nausea and vomiting, psycho-education for fatigue, and scalp cooling to reduce hair loss.

CONCLUSION

Although some strategies seem promising, the quality of the RCTs was generally quite low, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of self-care strategies. Future studies require better design and reporting of methodologic issues to establish evidence-based self-care recommendations for people receiving chemotherapy.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials involving 1353 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 10.49; granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.24; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Three of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA: however, more opiate was used with PKPCA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Oral mucositis, dysfunction, and distress in patients undergoing cancer therapy

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the patients' self-reported oral dysfunction in relation to oral mucositis and examined the extent to which oral dysfunction and distress correlated with oral mucositis.

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is the most symptomatic problem of patients in cancer therapy. However, the levels of oral functional impairment and distress in response to oral mucositis are not thoroughly assessed and researched.

DESIGN AND METHOD

This study employed a descriptive cross-sectional design. Eighty-eight subjects presenting with WHO grade > or =2 oral mucositis during 7-14 days after the initiation of chemotherapy and the last week of head and neck irradiation were enrolled in the study. Subjects were asked to indicate their intensity and distress of oral mucositis and associated oral dysfunction using 1-4 and 0-4 point rating scales, respectively.

RESULTS

Dry mouth and distorted taste were reported by 63 (72%) and 55 (63%) subjects separately. Fifty (57%) and 35 (40%) subjects reported having weight loss and dysphagia, respectively. The mean intensity and the distress score of oral mucositis and oral dysfunction reported by the subjects ranged from 1.96 to 2.51 and 1.58 to 2.09, respectively. The intensity of oral mucositis was significantly correlated with the intensity (r = 0.4-0.6) and the distress scores (r = 0.4-0.6) of oral dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

The findings have demonstrated that the intensity and the distress of oral dysfunction in patients with cancer therapy induced oral mucositis were moderately high from the patients' point of view. The data also supported the correlations between the intensity and the distress of oral mucositis and oral dysfunction.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Patients treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer most often suffer from a multitude of intense and distressing oral dysfunctions in conjunction with oral mucositis. Increased attention and treatment of the oral dysfunction noted are essential for the early identification and relief of distress.

Assessing and Managing Chemotherapy-Induced Mucositis Pain

Acute pain is the major clinical problem associated with mucositis. Mucosal tissue injury is a dose-limiting toxicity of many cancer therapies. Because the number of patients treated with combinations of high-dose chemotherapy agents is likely to increase, more patients are at risk for mucositis. Currently, no consensus exists regarding mucositis prevention, assessment, or treatment. Similarly, research is needed in methods to accurately assess and manage pain for mucositis. Multiple interventional approaches are needed to decrease the emotional and physical distress caused by acute oral pain and mucositis. An assessment tool that includes physical, functional, and pain parameters is presented. Although approaches to prevent and treat mucositis are increasing, appropriate assessment and timely directed interventions can minimize patient distress.

Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis

BACKGROUND

Oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis can affect up to 100% of patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, 80% of patients with malignancies of the head and neck receiving radiotherapy, and a wide range of patients receiving chemotherapy. Alimentary track mucositis increases mortality and morbidity and contributes to rising health care costs. Consequently, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology assembled an expert panel to evaluate the literature and to create evidence-based guidelines for preventing, evaluating, and treating mucositis.

METHODS

Thirty-six panelists reviewed literature published between January 1966 and May 2002. An initial meeting in January 2002 produced a preliminary draft of guidelines that was reviewed at a second meeting the same year. Thereafter, a writing committee produced a report on mucositis pathogenesis, epidemiology, and scoring (also included in this issue), as well as clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Panelists created recommendations from higher levels of evidence and suggestions when evidence was of a lower level and there was a consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence by the panel. Panelists identified gaps in evidence that made it impossible to recommend or not recommend use of specific agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral/GI mucositis is a common side effect of many anticancer therapies. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are presented as a benchmark for clinicians to use for routine care of appropriate patients and as a springboard to challenge clinical investigators to conduct high-quality trials geared toward areas in which data are either lacking or conflicting.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches August 2003: (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials involving 1292 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 10.49; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Two of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: Granulocyte Macrophage-Colony Stimulating Factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKPCA.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Antimicrobial therapy to prevent or treat oral mucositis

Oral mucositis represents a significant source of morbidity after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Since infection may have an important role in the pathophysiology of oral mucositis, several antimicrobial agents have been investigated for their efficacy in preventing and treating this disease. We sought to establish the weight of evidence for antimicrobial treatment and identified 31 prospectively designed clinical trials of which 13 reported some benefit and 15 did not. No clear pattern was identified regarding patient type, cancer treatment, or type of antimicrobial agent used, and inconsistent assessment of oral mucositis made comparison of outcomes difficult. Newer drugs, such as the topical antimicrobial peptide iseganan HCl initially showed promise in reducing mucositis and the related oral pain but the results of a phase 3 trial were disappointing and the line of enquiry was abandoned altogether. Hence, there is a need to better understand the role of the microflora in the cause of oral mucositis if an antimicrobial agent for prevention and treatment of this disease is to be developed.

Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Prevention and management

Oral mucositis is a frequent and potentially severe complication of chemotherapy which has a considerable impact on patient quality of life. While the management of other chemotherapy-related toxicities has improved, the incidence of mucositis is increasing. A critical review of the literature published between 1985 and 1999 reveals very few strategies or agents with proven efficacy, leaving few recommendations for the standard care in the prevention and treatment of mucositis at this time. Recommendations that can be made include: reducing patient risk factors, implementing proven preventative interventions such as utilising oral ice chips with fluorouracil chemotherapy, and optimising supportive care practices individualised to the patients' needs and symptoms. Progress in understanding the pathophysiology of mucositis at the molecular level has led to the evaluation of a number of new investigational agents, specifically those directed to the epithelial mucosa, such as mitogens and epithelial growth factors. These appear to be very promising in preclinical studies. Randomised clinical trials with these agents may finally demonstrate an impact on the clinical practice of mucositis management in the coming years.

Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 3 commonly used mouthwashes to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of 3 mouthwashes used to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis. The mouthwashes were as follows: salt and soda, chlorhexidine, and "magic" mouthwash (lidocaine, Benadryl, and Maalox).

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was implemented in 23 outpatient and office settings. Participants were monitored from the time they developed mucositis until cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis, or until they finished their 12-day supply of mouthwash. All participants followed a prescribed oral hygiene program and were randomly assigned a mouthwash. Nurses used the Oral Assessment Guide for initial assessment and taught patients how to assess their own mouths, then phoned the patients every other day to gather status reports.

RESULTS

In 142 of 200 patients, there was a cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis within 12 days. No significant differences in time for the cessation of the signs and symptoms were observed among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the comparable effectiveness of the mouthwashes, the least costly was salt and soda mouthwash.

GM-CSF mouthrinses in the treatment of severe oral mucositis: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this open trial was to test the efficacy of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) mouthrinses as a potential treatment in reducing the duration of severe oral mucositis in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation for hematologic malignancies.

STUDY DESIGN

The study group was composed of 10 consecutive patients suffering from severe oral mucositis during bone marrow transplantation procedures. The control group was similar to the study group in age and gender and comprised 29 historical patients with similar clinical characteristics. Freshly prepared GM-CSF mouthwash (0.5 microg/mL) was administered to the study population for 1 minute 3 times per day after oral hygiene procedures, starting from the first day of mucositis until clinical improvement of oral lesions. The study and control populations were compared with respect to duration of severe oral mucositis (1-9 days, 10-19 days, > or =20 days).

RESULTS

There was no statistically (chi2 exact test) significant difference in mean mucositis score between the study group (11.9+/-6.1) and the control group (16.6+/-8.9). However, the duration of severe mucositis appeared to be reduced; 60% of the GM-CSF mouthrinse patients had severe mucositis for less than 9 days, whereas only 28% of the controls had severe mucositis for less than 9 days. In addition, 10% of the GM-CSF mouthrinse patients experienced severe mucositis lasting 20 or more days, whereas 34% of the controls experienced severe mucositis for 20 or more days.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that GM-CSF may reduce the duration of severe mucositis, but controlled, double-blind clinical trials are now required.