Efficacy of Sucralfate Mouth Wash in Prevention of 5-fluorouracil Induced Oral Mucositis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Mechanistic insights into behavioral clusters associated with cancer-related systemic inflammatory response

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This focused, narrative review mostly describes our team's investigations into the potential inflammatory mechanisms that contribute to the development of cancer-related gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis and its associated symptoms. This review summarizes details of our clinical and preclinical findings to test the role of inflammation in the development and occurrence of these cancer-related conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

GI mucositis (GIM) is a common, distressing condition reported by cancer patients. GIM is often clustered with other behaviors including fatigue, pain, anorexia, depression, and diarrhea. It is hypothesized that there is a common biologic mechanism underpinning this symptom cluster. Our multi-platform investigations revealed that GIM and its associated cluster of behaviors may be triggered by local inflammation spreading systemically causing pro-inflammatory-mediated toxicities, leading to alterations in immune, metabolic, and nervous system functions and activities. For example, behavioral toxicities related to local irradiation for non-metastatic cancer may be triggered by mGluR5 activation influencing prolonged T cell as well as NF-κB transcription factor activities. Thus, interventions targeting inflammation and associated pathways may be a reasonable strategy to alleviate GIM and its symptom cluster.

SUMMARY

GIM may be a sign of a broader systemic inflammatory response triggered by cancer or its treatment. Addressing GIM and its associated symptoms primarily involves supportive care strategies focused on relieving symptoms, promoting healing, and preventing complications.

Efficacy of topical agents in oral mucositis prevention: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM) is considered one of the most common side effects of patients undergoing cancer therapy. OM prevention plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of cancer treatment and the patient's quality of life. Different preventive treatments have been proposed in clinical trials, however with inconclusive results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database to answer the PICO question: in cancer patients, do specific topical agents compared to standard treatments or placebo reduce the onset and severity of oral mucositis? The risk of bias was assessed, and a network meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 2913 results, 30 randomized clinical trials were considered suitable for inclusion. A total of 2564 patients were analyzed, of which 1284 belonged to the test group and 1280 belonged to the control group. Natural products were the most used, followed mainly by antimicrobial agents, coating agents, and basic oral care measures. Topical sucralfate resulted in the most powerful intervention for the OM prevention (OR = 0.04, 95%C.I. = 0.01-0.25, p-value = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Due to its cytoprotective action, low cost, ease of administration, and safety, sucralfate could become a potential ally to prevent the onset of OM during cancer therapy.

The Efficacy of Three Different Oral Hygiene Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis in Pediatric Patients Receiving Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is one of the side effects developed post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of a mouthwash mixture (lidocaine, sodium alginate, sucralfate, pheniramine) versus hyaluronic acid and a solution of sodium bicarbonate in terms of healing time and weight gain in the treatment of oral mucositis in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with hemato-oncological malignancies.

METHODS

A total of 171 patients that received chemotherapy for the hematopoietic stem cell transplant were divided into three groups; group 1, treated with a mixed mouthwash of lidocaine, sodium alginate, sucralfate, and pheniramine; group 2, treated with hyaluronic acid; and group 3, treated with an aqueous solution of 5% sodium bicarbonate. Weight and mucositis scale scores derived from medical records of patients.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the mucositis scale scores between the groups on the transplant day and days 5, 10, 15 and 20 after the transplantation. At these measurement points, Group 2 (receiving hyaluronic acid) had a lower score, and Group 3 (who received sodium bicarbonate) had a higher score, especially on days 5 and 10 after the transplantation.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that hyaluronic acid is a more effective treatment option than the other oral care solutions that are frequently used for prophylaxis and treatment of oral mucositis.

Evaluation of gastroprotectant administration in hospitalized cats in a tertiary referral hospital

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the prescription patterns and appropriateness of the use of gastroprotectant medication in cats.

METHODS

Pharmacy dispensation logs from an academic tertiary referral center were reviewed between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. Cats that were administered proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, misoprostol, antacids or a combination were included. Data regarding medication, dosage, formulation, duration of administration, completeness of discharge instructions and clinical rationales for administration were obtained from medical records. The appropriateness of gastroprotectant use was assessed according to the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine consensus statement guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the 110 cases, 67 (60.9%) were prescribed a gastroprotectant medication without an appropriate indication. The most common reason for prescription was acute kidney injury in 26/67 (38.8%). PPIs were the most common gastroprotectant medication administered in 95/110 (86.3%) cats, followed by sucralfate in 18/110 (16.4%) and H2RAs in 11/110 (10%). Of the 35 cases in which gastroprotectant therapy was indicated, the medication chosen or dosage administered was considered suboptimal in 16 (45.7%). Instructions regarding the duration of administration, potential adverse effects and timing of administration in relation to meals or other medications were inconsistently provided in discharge instructions to pet owners. Of the 29 cases discharged with omeprazole, only 13 (44.8%) instructions included a duration of administration, while 6 (20.7%) recommended continuing gastroprotectants indefinitely until further notice, 16 (55.2%) discussed the timing of the administration in relation to a meal and six (20.7%) mentioned potential adverse effects; none advised tapering of omeprazole before discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

When prescribed, gastroprotectant medications were frequently prescribed injudiciously to cats in this referral population over a 12-month period. Discharge instructions to pet owners also often lacked information and recommendations regarding optimal administration, potential adverse effects, and tapering or discontinuation of the medications.

TOPICAL AGENTS FOR THE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF ORAL MUCOSITIS

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To make a narrative assessment of the agents currently in use, with a particular emphasis on the topical agents that we frequently utilize in our practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The main method of this work is a review of literary sources. We reviewed the literature (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus) to support and explain the interventions we use in different cases of oral mucositis patients. We decided to combine our experience with evidence-based data.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Topical treatments alleviate and prevent oral mucositis. Topical medicines can assist maintain oral balance and moistness by modulating oral bacteria and replacing saliva.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Oral Mucositis Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy predisposes patients to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Data are limited regarding the incidence, management, and outcomes of one such irAE: mucositis. In this study, we evaluated the clinical characteristics, disease course, treatment, and outcomes of ICI-mediated mucositis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center study of patients who received ICI therapy and developed oral mucositis at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 2009 to September 2019. Inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years, a diagnosis of oral mucositis and/or stomatitis based on ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, and therapy using CTLA-4 or PD-1/L1 inhibitors alone or combined with other agents.

RESULTS

We identified 152 patients with a mean age of 60 years, 51% of whom were men. Of the sample patients, 73% had stage IV cancer, with melanoma the most common (28%). Median time from ICI initiation to mucositis was 91 days. The most common clinical presentation of mucositis was odynophagia and/or oral pain (89%), 91% developed CTCAE grade 1-2 mucositis, and 78% received anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy. Compared with anti-PD-1/L1-based therapy, anti-CTLA-4-based therapy was more frequently associated with earlier onset of mucositis (73 vs 96 days; P=.077) and a lower rate of symptom resolution (76% vs 92%; P=.029); 24% of patients required immunosuppressive therapy, which was associated with longer symptom duration (84 vs 34 days; P=.002) and higher mucositis recurrence rate (61% vs 32%; P=.006). ICI interruption was associated with worse survival (P=.037). Mucositis recurrence, immunosuppressant use, and presence of other irAEs did not affect survival.

CONCLUSIONS

For ICI-mediated mucositis, a diagnosis of exclusion has not been well recognized and is understudied. Although the clinical symptoms of mucositis are mostly mild, approximately 25% of patients require immunosuppression. Mucositis recurrence can occur in approximately 39% patients. Our results showed that ICI interruption compromises overall survival.

Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in adult cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM) in adult cancer patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central systematically for the randomised control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was any grade of OM. Secondary outcomes were mild-moderate OM, severe OM and adverse events, such as taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016052489.

Results

A total of 29 RCTs with 2348 patients (median age, 56.1 years; 57.5% male) were included. Cryotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of OM than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68), and zinc sulphate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97), but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. No significant differences were observed between cryotherapy and control for taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. Palifermin was associated with the highest risk of taste disturbance.

Conclusions

This NMA suggests that cryotherapy was the most effective intervention for preventing chemotherapy-induced OM with a safety profile similar to control, but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. Large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE

To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible.

RESULTS

A total of 9 new papers were identified within the scope of this section, adding to the 62 papers reviewed in this section previously. A new Suggestion was made for topical 0.2% morphine for the treatment of OM-associated pain in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with RT-CT (modification of previous guideline). A previous Recommendation against the use of sucralfate-combined systemic and topical formulation in the prevention of OM in solid cancer treatment with CT was changed from Recommendation Against to No Guideline Possible. Suggestion for doxepin and fentanyl for the treatment of mucositis-associated pain in H&N cancer patients was changed to No Guideline Possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the agents studied for the management of OM in this paper, the evidence supports a Suggestion in favor of topical morphine 0.2% in H&N cancer patients treated with RT-CT for the treatment of OM-associated pain.

Mucosal Injury during Anti-Cancer Treatment: From Pathobiology to Bedside

Mucositis is one of the most common debilitating side effects related to chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), targeted agents and immunotherapy. It is a complex process potentially involving any portion of the gastrointestinal tract and injuring the mucosa, leading to inflammatory or ulcerative lesions. Mechanisms and clinical presentation can differ according both to the anatomic site involved (oral or gastrointestinal) and the treatment received. Understanding the pathophysiology and management of mucosal injury as a secondary effect of anti-cancer treatment is an important area of clinical research. Prophylaxis, early diagnosis, and adequate management of complications are essential to increase therapeutic success and, thus, improve the survival outcomes of cancer patients. This review focuses on the pathobiology and management guidelines for mucositis, a secondary effect of old and new anti-cancer treatments, highlighting recent advances in prevention and discussing future research options.

Effect of sucralfate against hydrochloric acid-induced dental erosion

OBJECTIVE

Devising effective measures for the prevention of hydrochloric acid (HCl)-induced erosion is of great significance. This is even more important in dentine, in which products have limited diffusion. Therefore, agents that can bind to proteins forming an acid-resistant gel-like coat, such as sucralfate, may stand out as a promising alternative. This study investigated the protective effect of sucralfate suspensions against HCl-induced dental erosion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the first experiment, hydroxyapatite (HAp) crystals were pre-treated with a commercial sucralfate suspension (CoSS, pH 5.9), a stannous-containing sodium fluoride solution (NaF/SnCl₂ pH 4.5), two prepared sucralfate suspensions (PrSS, pH 5.9 and 4.5), or deionized water (DI, control). HAp dissolution was measured using a pH-stat system. In a subsequent experiment, embedded/polished enamel and root dentine slabs were allocated into five groups to be treated with one of the tested substances prior to and during erosion-remineralization cycles (HCl-2 min + artificial saliva 60 min, two times per day, 5 days). Surface loss was assessed profilometrically. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's tests.

RESULTS

HAp dissolution was as follows: NaF/SnCl₂ < CoSS < PrSS/pH 4.5, while PrSS/pH 5.9 = DI and both did not differ from CoSS and PrSS/pH 4.5. In enamel, surface loss did not differ between CoSS and PrSS/pH 4.5, with both having lower surface loss than PrSS/pH 5.9 and DI and NaF/SnCl₂ differing only from DI. In root dentine, surface loss was as follows: CoSS < PrSS/pH 5.9 < (NaF/SnCl₂ = DI), while PrSS/pH 4.5 = CoSS = PrSS/pH 5.9.

CONCLUSION

Sucralfate suspension provided anti-erosive protection to HCl-induced erosion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Sucralfate may protect teeth against erosion caused by gastric acid.

Effectiveness of Topical Sucralfate in the Management of Pressure Ulcer in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of topical sucralfate in the management of pressure ulcer (PU) in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

Forty hospitalized patients with stage II PU were included in this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial and were randomly divided into 2 groups receiving either sucralfate gel or placebo, on a daily basis. The patients were visited every day for 14 days, the ulcer was evaluated using the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) and changes to the measured scores over time were used as an indicator of wound healing.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in any of the demographic characteristics between both groups. Both of the interventions reduced the average PUSH score, and at the end of the trial, all but 2 patients were healed. One in each group discontinued the trial because of exacerbation of the ulcer. No significant between-group difference in the average PUSH score reduction was observed (6.36 ± 2.11 vs. 5.89 ± 1.41, P = 0.42). Although the average healing time was less in the sucralfate group (6.05 ± 2.17 vs. 7.78 ± 3.42), the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Sucralfate gel does not improve healing of PU compared with placebo.

New Frontiers in the Pathobiology and Treatment of Cancer Regimen-Related Mucosal Injury

Mucositis is a common complication of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted agents. It often affects compliance to anticancer therapies as it frequently causes schedule delays, interruptions or discontinuations of treatment. Moreover, the economic impact related to the management of mucositis is topical and several estimations of additional hospital costs due to this clinical condition have been recently reported. The ability to determine risk factors for mucositis, to early detect its onset, to assess correctly the degree of this toxicity and to plan its multidisciplinary management are all key elements to guarantee the quality of life of patients and to avoid useless dose reduction or interruption of treatment. The pathogenesis of mucositis is multifactorial and it is classily subdivided into oral and gastrointestinal mucositis according to its anatomic presentation. Treatment and patients’ related factors might help in predicting the frequency and the potential degree of symptoms onset. Here we discuss about clinical presentation and pathogenesis of mucositis in relation to different kinds of treatments. Moreover, we focus on therapeutic and prevention strategies, describing past and present management according to international guidelines and the most promising new data about agents potentially able to further improve the treatment of mucositis in the next future.

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.