A comparative study of the efficacy and safety of fluconazole oral suspension and amphotericin B oral suspension in cancer patients with mucositis

Comparison of topical antifungal agents for oral candidiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of topical antifungal drugs for oral candidiasis in adults and children.

STUDY DESIGN

Databases were searched from their inception to December 2020. The inclusion criterion was randomized controlled trials comparing topical antifungal agents. The primary outcomes were clinical response and mycological cure rates. The secondary outcomes were adverse reaction incidence and relapse rate.

RESULTS

In adults with oral candidiasis, fluconazole showed a better clinical response rate than clotrimazole (P = 0.001; risk ratio [RR], 1.14), but a similar mycological cure rate (P = 0.57; RR, 1.03). There was no significant difference in clinical response and mycological cure rates with either fluconazole and amphotericin B (clinical: P = 0.47, RR, 0.96; mycological: P = 0.99, RR, 1.00) or with either itraconazole and clotrimazole (clinical: P = 0.51, RR, 1.06; mycological: P = 0.45, RR, 1.32). For immunocompetent patients, fluconazole was superior to clotrimazole in terms of clinical response rate. For immunosuppressed patients, clotrimazole and itraconazole presented similar clinical response and mycological cure rates, but the relapse rate with itraconazole was lower than that with clotrimazole. In infants, miconazole and nystatin showed similar clinical response rates (P = 0.36; RR, 1.23), whereas miconazole presented a superior mycological cure rate (P = 0.03; RR, 4.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Fluconazole and amphotericin B are recommended as topical antifungal agents for adults with oral candidiasis. Existing studies tend to recommend fluconazole for immunocompetent patients and itraconazole for immunosuppressed patients, whereas miconazole is recommended for infants.

Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) is a major dose-limiting toxicity in head and neck cancer patients. It is a normal tissue injury caused by radiation/radiotherapy (RT), which has marked adverse effects on patient quality of life and cancer therapy continuity. It is a challenge for radiation oncologists since it leads to cancer therapy interruption, poor local tumor control, and changes in dose fractionation. RIOM occurs in 100% of altered fractionation radiotherapy head and neck cancer patients. In the United Sates, its economic cost was estimated to reach 17,000.00 USD per patient with head and neck cancers. This review will discuss RIOM definition, epidemiology, impact and side effects, pathogenesis, scoring scales, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

Oral mucositis caused by Candida glabrata biofilms: failure of the concomitant use of fluconazole and ascorbic acid

OBJECTIVES

Candida glabrata is becoming one of the most prevalent pathogenic yeasts in cases of oral diseases. Mucositis is an recurrent oral infection in immunocompromised patients, and the actual guidelines recommend the use of fluconazole (Flu) for many cases. However, the azole resistance by C. glabrata is renowned, causing a reduced therapeutic response, especially when it occurs in biofilms. In this study, we performed an in vitro evaluation of an alternative pharmacotherapy for C. glabrata biofilm infections, combining ascorbic acid (AA) with Flu. AA is recognized for degrading β-glucans, an important compound of the biofilm matrices, which prevent drug diffusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Routine clinical 30 or 40 mg/l doses of Flu were applied to C. glabrata biofilms simultaneously with 200 or 300 mg/l of AA.

RESULTS

The results showed that this combination effectively promoted the degradation of the biofilm network, but unfortunately, also stimulated the growth of the yeasts population due to release of several glucose monomers during β-glucans hydrolysis.

DISCUSSION

AA lead to the hydrolysis of the β-glucans of the matrix, liberating glucose molecules which are used as carbon souce by the yeasts, thus suppressing the desired antifungal effect of the drug combination with Flu.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike to what happens in treatment of bacterial infection, AA should not be used together with Flu in the treating oral mucositis caused by Candida.

Prevalence of oral Candida colonization in patients with diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

We aimed to assess the prevalence of oral Candida colonization in patients with diabetes and its relationship with factors such as Candida species, serum glucose level, and the susceptibility rate of isolated yeasts to antifungals.

PATIENTS

Random samples were obtained from 113 patients with type 2 diabetes, 24 patients with type 1 diabetes, and 105 healthy controls.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The samples were taken by swabbing the oral mucosa of patients with diabetes mellitus and healthy individuals. Afterwards the samples were inoculated onto CHROMagar-Candida. The growing colonies were counted, and the isolated yeasts were identified by PCR-RFLP and RapID methods. Various isolated species of Candida were also subjected to susceptibility testing of antibiotic drugs. Blood samples were taken to evaluate glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

RESULTS

Although the Candida carriage rate and density were statistically higher in diabetics than healthy individuals, no direct association was found between having high Candida-burden and glycosylated hemoglobin. The most commonly isolated species in both diabetics and controls was Candida albicans. Of the tested antifungal drugs, the highest rate of resistance was found against itraconazole, followed in frequency by ketoconazole and fluconazole.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified a significant association between the poor glycemic control and the higher prevalence rates of Candida carriage and density in diabetic patients. In addition, a high prevalence of C. dubliniensis in diabetic patients was found, which might be misdiagnosed with its morphologically related species, C. albicans.

Current treatment of oral candidiasis: A literature review

Candidiasis or oral candidosis is one of the most common human opportunistic fungal infections of the oral cavity. This pathology has a wide variety of treatment which has been studied until these days. The present study offers a literature review on the treatment of oral candidiasis, with the purpose of establish which treatment is the most suitable in each case. Searching the 24 latest articles about treatment of candidiasis it concluded that the incidence depends on the type of the candidiasis and the virulence of the infection. Although nystatin and amphotericin b were the most drugs used locally, fluconazole oral suspension is proving to be a very effective drug in the treatment of oral candidiasis. Fluconazole was found to be the drug of choice as a systemic treatment of oral candidiasis. Due to its good antifungal properties, its high acceptance of the patient and its efficacy compared with other antifungal drugs. But this drug is not always effective, so we need to evaluate and distinguish others like itraconazole or ketoconazole, in that cases when Candida strains resist to fluconazole.

Key words:Candidiasis, treatment, miconazole, fluconazole, nystatin.

Epidemiology of oral yeast colonization and infection in patients with hematological malignancies, head neck and solid tumors

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of oral yeast colonization and infection amongst cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with solid tumor, head-neck cancer or hematological malignancy were recruited into the study. Demographic data on age, gender, type of cancer, preceding treatment with antibiotics, anti-fungal agents, chemotherapy, radiation or surgery and presence of dentures were recorded on admission. Oral examination and microbial swabs were obtained and yeast culture, identification and antifungal susceptibility performed.

RESULTS

Oral yeast colonization was prevalent in 56.8% (227/400) of all cancer patients and 18.9% (43/227) of those had clinical and microbiological evidence of infection. The incidence of oral candidiasis in yeast colonized patients was highest in head neck cancer (29.2%) followed by hematological malignancies (20.5%) and solid tumor (17%) patients. Age and dentures were identified as independent risk factors associated with yeast carriage. Candida albicans was the dominant (74%) species (497.5 per 1000 cancer admissions) followed by C. glabrata (11.5%), C. tropicalis (2.6%), C. krusei (2.6%) and C. parapsilosis (1.9%). The overall resistance to azoles was 28.2% (75/266). Resistance to specific drugs was seen for fluconazole (4.5%), itraconazole (11.7%), ketoconazole (11.3%), voriconazole (0.75%) and caspofungin (41.1%) but none to amphotericin B or nystatin.

CONCLUSIONS

The highest incidence of oral candidiasis amongst cancer patients was seen in head neck cancers. The majority of infections were caused by C. albicans but almost one third of patients harbored non-C. albicans strains such as C. glabrata which were often more resistant to anti-fungal agents.

Interventions for treating oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral and gastrointestinal side effects, including oral candidiasis, 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 the treatment of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010, 1 June 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1 June 2010) and LILACS via Virtual Health Library (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 candidiasis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. The outcomes were eradication of oral candidiasis, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Trial authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated using fixed-effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials involving 940 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Drugs absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were beneficial in eradication of oral candidiasis compared with drugs not absorbed from the GI tract (three trials: RR = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.52), however there was significant heterogeneity. A drug absorbed from the GI tract, ketoconazole, was more beneficial than placebo in eradicating oral candidiasis (one trial: RR = 3.61, 95% CI 1.47 to 8.88). Clotrimazole, at a higher dose of 50 mg was more effective than a lower 10 mg dose in eradicating oral candidiasis, when assessed mycologically (one trial: RR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.60). Only one of the ten trials was assessed as at low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for any antifungal agent in treating candidiasis. Further well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of old and new interventions for treating oral candidiasis are needed. Clinicians need to make a decision on whether to prevent or treat oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of miconazole 50-mg mucoadhesive buccal tablets with miconazole 500-mg gel in the treatment of oropharyngeal candidiasis: a prospective, randomized, single-blind, multicenter, comparative, phase III trial in patients treated with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Topical antifungal treatments are recommended but rarely used as first-line therapy for oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC) in patients with cancer. Miconazole Lauriad 50-mg mucoadhesive buccal tablet (MBT) Loramyc reportedly delivered rapid and prolonged, effective concentrations of miconazole in the mouth. The objective of the current study was to compare MBT with miconazole 500-mg oral gel (MOG) in patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-two patients with head and neck cancer received a 14-day treatment of either single-dose MBT or MOG administered in 4 divided doses. The primary endpoint was clinical success at Day 14, and secondary endpoints included clinical success at Day 7, clinical cure, improvement in clinical symptoms, mycologic cure, recurrence rate, and safety.

RESULTS

The success rate was statistically not inferior (P < .0001) in the MBT population to the rate observed in the MOG group (56% vs 49%, respectively; P < .0001). After adjustment for the extent of lesions and salivary secretions, a trend toward superiority was observed in favor of MBT (P = .13), particularly among patients with multiple lesions (P = .013). Results for secondary endpoints were comparable to those observed for the primary endpoint. Compliance with MBT was excellent, and >80% of patients completed treatment. Both treatments were safe.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate of MBT Loramyc was significantly not inferior to that of MOG in the treatment of cancer patients with OPC; and, after adjusting for prognostic variables, it was more effective than MOG. MBT was well tolerated and, thus, may be recommended as first-line treatment in cancer patients who have OPC as an alternative to systemic antifungal agents. Society.

Mucosite bucal rádio e quimioinduzida

O aumento da intensidade da quimioterapia e radioterapia no tratamento do câncer tem elevado a incidência de efeitos colaterais, em especial da mucosite bucal. OBJETIVO E MÉTODO: Através de revisão bibliográfica realizou-se atualizar informações quanto à definição, características clínicas, incidência, etiologia, patofisiologia, morbidade associada, prevenção e tratamento dessa manifestação clínica. RESULTADOS: Estudos atuais definem a mucosite bucal como uma inflamação e ulceração dolorosa bastante freqüente na mucosa bucal apresentando formação de pseudomembrana. Sua incidência e severidade são influenciadas por variáveis associadas ao paciente e ao tratamento a que ele é submetido. A mucosite é conseqüência de dois mecanismos maiores: toxicidade direta da terapêutica utilizada sobre a mucosa e mielossupressão gerada pelo tratamento. Sua patofisiologia é composta por quatro fases interdependentes: fase inflamatória/vascular, fase epitelial, fase ulcerativa/bacteriológica e fase de reparação. É considerada fonte potencial de infecções com risco de morte, sendo a principal causa de interrupção de tratamentos antineoplásicos. Algumas intervenções mostraram-se potencialmente efetivas para sua prevenção e tratamento. Entretanto, faz-se necessária a realização de novos estudos clínicos mais bem conduzidos para obtenção de melhor evidência científica acerca do agente terapêutico de escolha para o controle da mucosite bucal, permitindo a realização da quimioterapia e radioterapia do câncer em parâmetros ideais.

Radiation therapy and chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis

Increasing the intensity of radiation therapy and chemotherapy in the management of cancer has increased the incidence of adverse effects, especially oral mucositis.

AIM AND METHODS

a bibliographical review was conducted on the definition of oral mucositis, its clinical findings, the incidence, its etiology, the pathophysiology, associated morbidity, prevention and treatment.

RESULTS

current studies define oral mucositis as a very frequent and painful inflammation with ulcers on the oral mucosa that are covered by a pseudo membrane. The incidence and severity of lesions are influenced by patient and treatment variables. Oral mucositis is a result of two major mechanisms: direct toxicity on the mucosa and myelosuppression due to the treatment. Its pathophysiology is composed of four interdependent phases: an initial inflammatory/vascular phase; an epithelial phase; an ulcerative/bacteriological phase; and a healing phase. It is considered a potential source of life-threatening infection and often is a dose-limiting factor in anticancer therapy. Some interventions have been shown to be potentially effective to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Further intensive research through well-structured clinical trials to obtain the best scientific evidence over the standard therapy of oral mucositis is necessary to attain ideal parameters for radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Interventions for treating oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral candidiasis, 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 the treatment of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS 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 candidiasis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. The outcomes were eradication of oral candidiasis, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. Risk ratios were calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials involving 658 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Only two agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for eradicating oral candidiasis. A drug absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, ketoconazole, was more beneficial than placebo in eradicating oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR) = 3.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 8.88) and clotrimazole, at a higher dose of 50 mg was more effective than a lower 10 mg dose in eradicating oral candidiasis, when assessed mycologically (RR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.60). Of the five trials included in these meta-analyses, three were at high risk of bias and two of moderate risk of bias. Another trial demonstrated no statistically significant difference between a 10 mg dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, and placebo. No differences were found when comparing different absorbed drugs; and comparing absorbed drugs with drugs which are not absorbed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that the absorbed drug, ketoconazole, may eradicate oral candidiasis and that a higher dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, may give greater benefit than a lower 10 mg dose, however, researchers may wish to prevent rather than treat oral candidiasis. Further well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of old and new interventions for treating oral candidiasis are needed.

In vitro antifungal susceptibility to six antifungal agents of 229 Candida isolates from patients with diabetes mellitus

The most common antifungal drugs in current clinical use for the treatment of oral candidosis are polyenes and azoles, mainly used topically. Poor glycaemic control in association with other local factors, such as the presence of oral dental prostheses, salivary pH, salivary flow rate and tobacco habits, may lead to the development of oral candidosis. Topical antifungal agents are frequently used to prevent the development of candidal infections in patients with poor metabolic control, particularly in the elderly wearing dentures. The aim of this study was to assess the antifungal susceptibility of Candida isolates to six antifungal agents using a commercially available kit, Fungitest. The isolated were collected from patients affected by diabetes mellitus from two different geographic localities (London, UK, and Parma, Italy) and from a group of healthy non-diabetic subjects. No differences in antifungal susceptibility to the six agents tested were observed between Candida isolates from diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. However, differences were observed between the two geographically different diabetes mellitus populations. Oral yeast isolates from diabetes mellitus patients in the UK more often displayed resistance or intermediate resistance to fluconazole (P=0.02), miconazole (P<0.0001), and ketoconazole (P=0.01) than did isolates from diabetes mellitus patients in Italy. In addition, more C. albicans isolates were found in diabetic and non-diabetic subjects that were susceptible to fluconazole (P=0.0008 and P=0.01, respectively) than non-albicans isolates. The difference in the antifungal resistance of isolates from the two populations of diabetes mellitus patients may be related to differences in the therapeutic management of candidal infections between the two centres.

Novel modes of antifungal drug administration

Administration of antifungals by routes other than that for which the agent was designed or approved have been utilised in attempts to provide directed therapy, reduce adverse effects and improve drug penetration into selected infection sites, such as the central nervous system, lungs and peritoneum. The most widely investigated agent utilising a novel method of drug delivery is amphotericin B. Dose forms for this agent include topicals (aerosol, nasal spray, irrigations, pastes, absorbable sponges, impregnated bone cement and gelatin), oral dosage forms (solutions, suspensions, tablets and so on) and ophthalmic preparations (drops, ointments and injections). Amphotericin B has been administered by routes such as oral, endobronchial, intrathecal, intracisternal, intra-articular, intraperitoneal, ophthalmic and as an antibiotic 'line lock'. Nystatin has been administered as an aerosol, percutaneous paste and bladder washes. Azoles, such as miconazole, fluconazole, ketoconazole and posaconazole, have been administered by novel methods but to a lesser degree. Most of these reports involve miconazole. The dose forms and routes of administration for azoles have included irrigants (bladder, joint), ophthalmic preparations (eye drops, intraocular injections, ointments), impregnated bone cement, endobronchial and intrathecal administration. Finally, both methylene blue (bladder washes) and flucytosine (peritoneal lavage, ophthalmic eye drops) have also been employed. Adequate evaluations of both the safety and efficacy of these therapies are most often hindered by prior or concomitant antifungal therapies, comorbidities and the lack of controlled clinical trials. In addition, the availability of newer treatment options, which demonstrate significant improvement in drug distribution and treatment-related adverse effects make many such novel modes of administration less practical or necessary. In contrast, the inhalation of antifungal aerosols, such as amphotericin B, is rapidly becoming a viable prophylactic option.

Zinc sulfate in the prevention of radiation-induced oropharyngeal mucositis: a prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized study

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of oral zinc sulphate supplementation on radiation-induced oropharyngeal mucositis in patients with head-and-neck cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with head-and-neck cancer were randomly assigned to receive either zinc sulfate or placebo. Primary tumors were localized in the larynx in 14 patients, in the nasopharynx in 4, in the oral cavity in 4, in a salivary gland in 1, in the maxillary sinus in 1, in neck nodes (lymphoma presenting primarily) in 3 and in neck metastases from an unknown primary in 3. In the placebo group, 3 patients were excluded; 1 patient died during treatment, 1 left the study, and 1 did not come to the 6 week control visit. The patients were treated with telecobalt radiotherapy at conventional fractionation (2 Gy/fraction, five fractions weekly, for 20-35 fractions within 4-7 weeks). The median radiation dose was 6400 cGy (4000-7000 cGy). Oral mucositis was assessed by two independent physicians, experts in radiation oncology, using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring criteria.

RESULTS

In the zinc sulfate group, Grade 3-4 mucositis was not detected in any patient; Grade 0 mucositis was detected in 2, and Grade 1 in 8, and Grade 2 in 5 patients. In the placebo group, Grade 2 mucositis was detected in 4 and Grade 3 in 8 patients. We observed that the degree of mucositis in the patients in the zinc sulfate group was significantly lower than that in the placebo group (p < 0.05). Confluent mucositis developed earlier in the placebo group than in the zinc sulfate group after the onset of treatment (p < 0.05) and started to improve sooner in the zinc sulfate group than in the placebo group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Zinc sulfate is beneficial in decreasing the severity of radiation-induced mucositis and oral discomfort. These results should be confirmed by additional evaluation in randomized studies with a larger number of patients.