Povidone-iodine to prevent mucositis in patients during antineoplastic radiochemotherapy

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.

A prospective randomized study comparing the efficacy between povidone-iodine gargling and benzydamine hydrochloride for mucositis prevention in head and neck cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy

Background

Concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) has been the standard treatment for organ preservation or locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) is an important treatment-limiting toxicity. Benzydamine hydrochloride was recommended to prevent oral mucositis. Povidone-iodine had also been adopted to use as an oral rinse to prevent mucositis.

Objective

This study compared the efficacy between benzydamine hydrochloride and 0.1% povidone-iodine to prevent RIOM in HNC patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Methods

We conducted a randomized control study in HNC patients receiving CCRT with curative intent. The stratification factors were primary site of disease, treatment modality, chemotherapy regimen, and schedule. The primary outcome was RIOM assessed by Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS). Secondary outcomes included RIOM assessed by NCI-CTCAE, use of analgesic, antibiotics and anti-fungal drugs, hospitalization, and participant satisfaction.

Results

There were 83 participants recruited for this study with 71 completing the trial. Demographic characteristics were well-balanced between both arms. The univariate regression analysis revealed that povidone-iodine correlated with less RIOM compared to benzydamine hydrochloride (coefficient -2.25, 95% CI -4.37 to -0.012, p-value 0.03). The incidence of grade III-IV CTCAE RIOM during the study period was 51.4% with benzydamine hydrochloride compared to 26.5% with 0.1% povidone iodine (p-value 0.032). The peak incidence of grade III-IV CTCAE RIOM occurred in the 7th week of treatment (40.5% vs. 11.8%, p-value 0.01). This indicated the efficacy of povidone-iodine to prevent severe RIOM which usually most severity in the last week of CCRT treatment. The multivariate analysis revealed that the CCRT setting (definitive vs. adjuvant) and gargling agents (povidone-iodine vs. benzydamine hydrochloride were the factors associated with RIOM.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated higher efficacy of 0.1% povidone-iodine gargle than benzydamine hydrochloride in mucositis prevention.

Effects of various treatments for preventing oral mucositis in cancer patients: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common side effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with cancers. The prevention or treatment of OM in cancer patients is crucial in the treatment of cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the randomized control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing and treating OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The prespecified primary efficacy outcome was the treatment effect of moderate to severe oral mucositis with 12 interventions. The outcome was moderate to a severe grade of OM.

RESULTS

This study included 55 RCTs with 3,552 participants. The results showed that honey significantly lowered the risk of chemo/radiotherapy-induced moderate to severe oral mucositis than placebo (OR: 0.01, 95%CI 0.00 to 0.45), followed by lignocaine (OR: 0.07, 95%CI 0.00 to 0.95). The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values for honey were 0.95, followed by lignocaine (SUCRA, 0.81) and benzydamine (SUCRA, 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The honey is effective for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis.

Can povidone iodine gargle/mouthrinse inactivate SARS-CoV-2 and decrease the risk of nosocomial and community transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic? An evidence-based update

The Coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), also referred to as the novel ‘CoV19 (nCov19)’ is caused by a new coronavirus strain similar to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 spreads via respiratory droplets, saliva, or direct contact. Therefore it is important to control the viral load in the saliva and respiratory secretions. One of the most simple and cost-effective measures that can be adopted by the public and healthcare professionals to prevent cross-contamination and community transmission, is the implementation of effective oral and throat hygiene. Recent evidence has confirmed that 0.5% povidone iodine (PVP-I) mouthrinse/gargle for 30 s can reduce SARS-CoV-2 virus infectivity to below detectable levels. PVP-I can even interrupt SARS-CoV-2 attachment to oral and nasopharyngeal tissues and lower the viral particles in the saliva and respiratory droplets. Thus, the use of PVP-I mouthrinse as a prophylactic measure has been advocated across the globe to reduce disease transmission. Although the efficacy of PVP-I against SARS-CoV-2 is proven, no review articles have yet discussed the evidence and mechanisms of PVP-I against the SARS-CoV-2. Thus, this paper highlights the rationale, safety, recommendations, and dosage of PVP-I gargle/mouthrinse as an effective method to decrease the viral loads during the pressing times of COVID-19.

Tolerability and usability of 0.5% PVP-I gargles and nasal drops in 6692 patients: Observational study

Objectives

1.

To assess the feasibility and usability of 0.5% PVP-I gargles and nasal drops in patients attending ENT consultations for a period of 5 months as a pre requisite prior to ENT examination.

2.

To assess the tolerance of 0.5% PVP-I in these patients for regular use for a period of 8 days.

Study design

Observational study.

Setting

Secondary care ENT Centre.

Methods

All patients attending the hospital for office ENT consultations from 15th April 2020 to 15th September 2020 were included in the study. A total of 6692 office patients were evaluated for feasibility, usability and tolerability of the 0.5% PVP-I gargles and nasal drops.

Results

Overall practicability of using 0.5% PVP-I gargles and nasal drops at office level was assessed in terms of feasibility and usability. Feasibility and usability was considered in terms of the ease of the dispensing method of the 0.5% PVP-I gargles and nasal drops by the health care workers to the patients prior to ENT examination. Tolerance was assessed in terms of altered taste, staining of teeth or nasal skin or irritation in the nose. None reported any serious reactions or adverse effects following use of 0.5% PVP-I.

Conclusion

The study reports the successful feasibility and usability of 0.5% PVP-I gargles and nasal drops and bears the potential to provide benefits in preventing transmission from the patients to the health care workers and vice versa.

Level of evidence

4.

Povidone-iodine solution as SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis for procedures of the upper aerodigestive tract a theoretical framework

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns of inadvertent SARS-CoV-2 transmission to healthcare workers during routine procedures of the aerodigestive tract in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. Current efforts to mitigate this risk focus on Personal Protective Equipment, including high-efficiency filtration as well as other measures.

Because the reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 shedding is in the nasopharynx and nasal and oral cavities, the application of viricidal agents to these surfaces may reduce virus burden. Numerous studies have confirmed that povidone-iodine inactivates many common respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-1. Povidone-iodine also has good profile for mucosal tolerance. Thus, we propose a prophylactic treatment protocol for the application of topical povidone-iodine to the upper aerodigestive tract.

Conclusion

Such an approach represents a low-cost, low-morbidity measure that may reduce the risks associated with aerosol-generating procedures performed commonly in otorhinolaryngology operating rooms.

Graphical abstract

Povidone-Iodine Use in Sinonasal and Oral Cavities: A Review of Safety in the COVID-19 Era

OBJECTIVES

Approaches to nasal and oral decontamination with povidone-iodine (PVP-I) have been published to reduce nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The safety of PVP-I topically applied to the nasal and oral cavity is addressed by a literature review. The specific efficacy of PVP-I against coronaviruses and its potential efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is discussed.

METHODS

A review was performed utilizing PubMed and Cochrane Databases. All citations in protocols for nasal and oral PVP-I use regarding COVID-19 were independently reviewed.

RESULTS

Povidone-iodine has been safely administered for up to 5 months in the nasal cavity and 6 months in the oral cavity. Concentrations less than 2.5% in vitro do not reduce ciliary beat frequency or cause pathological changes in ciliated nasal epithelium, upper respiratory, or mucosal cells. Adverse events with oral use have not been reported in conscious adults or children. Allergy and contact sensitivity is rare. Chronic mucosal use up to 5% has not been shown to result in clinical thyroid disease. PVP-I is rapidly virucidal and inactivates coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

CONCLUSIONS

Povidone-iodine can safely be used in the nose at concentrations up to 1.25% and in the mouth at concentrations up to 2.5% for up to 5 months. Povidone-iodine rapidly inactivates coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, when applied for as little as 15 seconds. There is optimism that PVP-I can inactivate SARS-CoV-2, but in vitro efficacy has not yet been demonstrated.

In Vitro Bactericidal and Virucidal Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine Gargle/Mouthwash Against Respiratory and Oral Tract Pathogens

Introduction

Recent virus epidemics and rising antibiotic resistance highlight the importance of hygiene measures to prevent and control outbreaks. We investigated the in vitro bactericidal and virucidal efficacy of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 7% gargle/mouthwash at defined dilution against oral and respiratory tract pathogens.

Methods

PVP-I was tested against Klebsiella pneumoniae and Streptococcus pneumoniae according to bactericidal quantitative suspension test EN13727 and against severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV), rotavirus strain Wa and influenza virus A subtype H1N1 according to virucidal quantitative suspension test EN14476. PVP-I 7% gargle/mouthwash was diluted 1:30 with water to a concentration of 0.23% (the recommended concentration for “real-life” use in Japan) and tested at room temperature under clean conditions [0.3 g/l bovine serum albumin (BSA), viruses only] and dirty conditions (3.0 g/l BSA + 3.0 ml/l erythrocytes) as an interfering substance for defined contact times (minimum 15 s). Rotavirus was tested without protein load. A ≥ 5 log₁₀ (99.999%) decrease of bacteria and ≥ 4 log₁₀ (99.99%) reduction in viral titre represented effective bactericidal and virucidal activity, respectively, per European standards.

Results

PVP-I gargle/mouthwash diluted 1:30 (equivalent to a concentration of 0.23% PVP-I) showed effective bactericidal activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae and Streptococcus pneumoniae and rapidly inactivated SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, influenza virus A (H1N1) and rotavirus after 15 s of exposure.

Conclusion

PVP-I 7% gargle/mouthwash showed rapid bactericidal activity and virucidal efficacy in vitro at a concentration of 0.23% PVP-I and may provide a protective oropharyngeal hygiene measure for individuals at high risk of exposure to oral and respiratory pathogens.

Funding

Mundipharma Research GmbH & Co. KG (MRG).

Topical chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and erythromycin in the repair of traumatic ulcers on the rat tongue: Clinical, histological and microbiological evaluation

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the effect of topical application of 0.12% chlorhexidine, 10% povidone-iodine and 50% erythromycin on the optimization of healing process of traumatic ulcers made on ventral tongue of rats.

DESIGN

Forty-Eight Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: control, chlorhexidine (Chx), povidone-iodine (PvI) and erythromycin (Er). An ulcer of 5 mm in diameter was made on the ventral tongue of the animals. After 24 h, a microbiological sample was taken and daily application of the substances started. Six animals each group were euthanized at 4 days and the others at 8 days postoperative, totaling three and seven days of treatment. Prior to euthanasia, a new microbiological collection was performed.

RESULTS

The experimental groups showed less area of residual ulcer. A significant difference was seen between the PvI and Chx in relation to the control after three days of treatment (p < 0.05). Although the experimental groups displayed greater newly formed epithelial area, there was no significant difference compared to the control (p > 0.05). Er exhibed the lowest inflammation scores after seven days of treatment (p < 0.05). PvI showed reduction of microorganisms at both times and under aerobic (p < 0.01 at 3 days and p < 0.001 at 7 days) and microaerophilic (p < 0.05) conditions. Er significantly reduced the count of microorganisms in aerobic condition when compared to control group (p < 0.05 at 3 days and p < 0.01 at 7 days).

CONCLUSIONS

All drugs promoted reduction of the microorganisms at the site of the injury, which may have a direct effect on the tissue repair process.

Povidone-iodine for the management of oral mucositis during cancer therapy

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common and often dose-limiting side effect of cancer therapy. Povidone iodine (PVP-I) formulations have been shown to decrease the incidence and severity of OM, but the relevance of these findings remains unclear. The objective of the present study was to review evidence for the use of PVP-I for OM management. An algorithm identified relevant articles published online, and a panel of experts with experience in the management of OM reviewed the findings. Six studies fulfilled the criteria for full review. Two studies provided evidence of moderate quality. Two of the studies with negative findings were confounded by the use of PVP-I concentrations that are too low to be efficacious. The remaining two studies were found to have design flaws. There exists reasonable evidence to support a recommendation for the use of PVP-I in the management of cancer therapy-related OM.

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.

Preventive Intervention Possibilities in Radiotherapy- and Chemotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis: Results of Meta-analyses

The aim of these meta-analyses was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of oral mucositis in cancer patients treated with head and neck radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. A literature search was performed for reports of randomized controlled clinical studies, published between 1966 and 2004, the aim of which was the prevention of mucositis in cancer patients undergoing head and neck radiation, chemotherapy, or chemoradiation. The control group consisted of a placebo, no intervention, or another intervention group. Mucositis was scored by either the WHO, the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) score, or the absence or presence of ulcerations, or the presence or absence of grades 3 and 4 mucositis. The meta-analyses included 45 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, in which 8 different interventions were evaluated: i.e., local application of chlorhexidine; iseganan; PTA (polymyxin E, tobramycine, and amphotericin B); granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF/G-CSF); oral cooling; sucralfate and glutamine; and systemic administration of amifostine and GM-CSF/G-CSF. Four interventions showed a significant preventive effect on the development or severity of oral mucositis: PTA with an odds ratio (OR) = 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39–0.96); GM-CSF, OR = 0.53 (CI: 0.33–0.87); oral cooling, OR = 0.3 (CI: 0.16–0.56); and amifostine, OR = 0.37 (CI: 0.15–0.89). To date, no single intervention completely prevents oral mucositis, so combined preventive therapy strategies seem to be required to ensure more successful outcomes.

The effect of clove-based herbal mouthwash on radiation-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer: a single-blind randomized preliminary study

Purpose

This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clove-based herbal mouthwash in ameliorating radiation-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer.

Methods

Fourteen patients were prospectively enrolled in this study and randomized to either an experimental group or a control group. The patients of the experimental group swished their mouths with a clove-based herbal mouthwash during radiotherapy (RT), while the patients of the control group swished with clear water. The primary end point of this study was incidence of radiation-induced oral mucositis. The secondary end points were time to onset of radiation-induced oral mucositis, duration of radiation-induced oral mucositis, incidence of supplemental nutrition through feeding tube, maximum pain score, body weight loss, incidence of RT interruption, and duration of RT interruption.

Results

The use of clove-based herbal mouthwash shortened the duration of grade ≥2 mucositis (24.3 days vs 37.1 days, P=0.044) and reduced body weight loss during RT (3.1% vs 7.4%, P=0.023) compared with clear water. The use of clove-based herbal mouthwash also reduced the incidence of grade 3 mucositis (28.6% vs 57.1%), supplemental nutrition (0% vs 28.6%), and RT interruption (14.3% vs 28.6%), and reduced the duration of grade 3 mucositis (5.1 days vs 17.7 days) and RT interruption (1 days vs 8.5 days). In addition, clove-based herbal mouthwash delayed the time to onset of mucositis (26.6 days vs 24.5 days) and reduced the maximum pain score (4.1 vs 4.9). However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Although we could not find significant differences in some end points, this single-blind randomized study showed that a clove-based herbal mouthwash can have a potentially beneficial effect on minimizing or preventing radiation-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer. To confirm the results of our study, well-designed randomized studies with large sample sizes will be required.

Practical use of povidone-iodine antiseptic in the maintenance of oral health and in the prevention and treatment of common oropharyngeal infections

AIMS

To better inform medical practitioners on the role of antiseptics in oropharyngeal health and disease, this article focuses on povidone-iodine (PVP-I), an established and widely-available antiseptic agent.

METHODOLOGY

Review of the anti-infective profile, efficacy and safety of PVP-I in managing common upper respiratory tract infections such as the common cold, influenza and tonsillo-pharyngitis, as well as oral complications resulting from cancer treatment (oral mucositis), and dental conditions (periodontitis, caries).

RESULTS

Antiseptics with broad-spectrum anti-infective activity and low resistance potential offer an attractive option in both infection control and prevention. While there is some evidence of benefit of antiseptics in a variety of clinical settings that include dental and oral hygiene, dermatology, oncology, and pulmonology, there appears to be discordance between the evidence-base and practice. This is especially apparent in the management and prevention of oropharyngeal infections, for which the use of antiseptics varies considerably between clinical practices, and is in marked contrast to their dermal application, where they are extensively used as both a prophylaxis and a treatment of skin and wound infections, thus minimising the use of antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

The link between oral and oropharyngeal health status and susceptibility to infection has long been recognised. The high rates of antibiotic misuse and subsequent development of bacterial resistance (e.g. increasing vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)) in large parts of the world, especially across Asia Pacific, highlight the need for identifying alternative antimicrobials that would minimise the use of these medications. This, together with recent large-scale outbreaks of, for example, avian and swine influenza virus, further underline the importance of an increasing armamentarium for infection prevention and control.

The impact of dairy consumption on salivary inoculum

Quantitative levels of harmful oral microbes present following complex surgical excisions of head and neck cancer are important since wounds are often contaminated through direct connection to the oral cavity and its flora. This possibility is especially important in irradiated patients who have decreased protective salivary function. In addition, high oral microbial levels increase and intensify oral mucositis leading to significant morbidity in patients treated with radiation therapy. One previously untested surgical teaching to decrease the bacterial inoculum present in the oral cavity is to counsel patients against consuming otherwise nutritious dairy products, as they are thought to coat the oral cavity with rate-limiting nutrients vital for bacterial growth. This risk may extend to individuals with chronic laryngeal penetration or aspiration, since salivary bacterial load might represent a lethal threat in the presence of marginal pulmonary reserve. A crossover study using six healthy adult volunteers and six patients who had previously undergone radiation therapy to an oropharyngeal primary site was performed. Saliva samples were quantitatively cultured in both groups with and without the consumption of dairy products at 1-h and 5-h intervals. Analysis of quantitative cultures demonstrated that the consumption of dairy products had no influence on bacterial levels present in previously radiated subjects and nonirradiated controls. Additionally, the consumption of dairy did not affect the composition of microbes present. Due to the lack of changes in both quantity and composition of oral bacteria seen in this study, patients would not benefit from the avoidance of dairy products.

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

PURPOSE

The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible.

RESULTS

A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.

Role of povidone iodine in periapical surgeries: Hemostyptic and anti-inflammatory?

INTRODUCTION

Periapical surgery needs asepsis, a bloodless field for ensuring success of the treatment. Efficacy of Povidone Iodine (PVI) in the elimination of pathogen causing periapical lesions is well established. PVI is also widely used as a disinfectant, sclerosing agent, styptic as well as an anti-odematous agent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective pilot study done on 20 males between 20-40 years age group with periapical lesions in single rooted maxillary anterior tooth of 1-2 cm in diameter. The bleeding time, clotting time, bleeding time at the apex, drugs used and visual analogue scale of oedema on postoperative days were obtained. Descriptive statistics, paired t test and independent t-test were used.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Results show a statistically significant reduction in the time required to achieve a bloodless field and a marked decrease in oedema in the first and second postoperative days resulting in lesser consumption of NSAIDs. In conclusion, the effect of PVI in periapical surgery seems to reduce the bleeding time at apex, total dose of NSAIDs used, oedema on first two postoperative days with high statistical significance. Hence the routine use of saline in periapical surgeries may be effectively substituted with PVI. The finding of this pilot study has to be evaluated using wider samples for effective clinical translations.

Treating oral mucositis with a supersaturated calcium phosphate rinse: comparison with control in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Purpose

Of patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), 75 % or more experience oral mucositis, a painful acute complication that can delay discharge, interrupt treatment, and threaten life. To evaluate the efficacy of a supersaturated calcium phosphate rinse (SCPR), we compared it with customary care—topical mouth solutions—on measures of severity and consequent interventions and complications.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, 40 patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT were randomized: 20 to SCPR four times daily and 20 to solutions made with salvia leaf extract, iodine-povidine, and fluconazole. Treatment extended from initiation of conditioning treatment until the granulocyte count was ≥0.2 g/L. Mucositis severity was measured daily by a hematologist according to a World Health Organization (WHO) scale and self-assessed by patients. Need for interventions [analgesics, total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor] and complications (acute graft-versus-host disease and infections) were also assessed.

Results

In comparison with the control group, the SCPR group had significantly lower mean measures of WHO oral toxicity (0.9 vs. 1.8; P = 0.02), disease course (3.2 vs. 7.1 days; P = 0.02), and peak mouth pain (0.85 vs. 1.75; P = 0.005). Analgesic need was significantly shorter (1.1 vs. 3.4 days; P = 0.047) and the need for TPN significantly lower (0 vs. 6 patients; P = 0.02; 0 vs. 1.9 mean days; P = 0.009). Measures of complications were lower in the SCPR group, but not significantly so. Trial limitations include the impracticality of achieving double blinding with agents so different in appearance and in preadministration preparation.

Conclusions

Compared with the control group, the SCPR group had significantly lower mean measures of oral toxicity, peak mouth pain, and disease course duration. These results warrant confirmation in controlled, multicenter, randomized trials.

Cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis: a critical review

Head and neck cancer represents one of the main oncological problems. Its treatment, radiotherapy and chemotherapy leads to mucositis, and other side effects. The authors reviewed high-quality evidence published over the last 25 years on the treatment of cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis. A Medline search for double blind randomized controlled clinical trials between 1985 and 2010 was carried out. The keywords were oral mucositis, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and head and neck. The different therapeutic approaches found for cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis included: intensive oral hygiene care; use of topical antiseptics and antimicrobial agents; use of anti-inflammatory agents; cytokines and growth factors; locally applied non-pharmacological methods; antioxidants; immune modulators; and homoeopathic agents. To date, no intervention has been able to prevent and treat oral mucositis on its own. It is necessary to combine interventions that act on the different phases of mucositis. It is still unclear which strategies reduce oral mucositis, as there is not enough evidence that describes a treatment with a proven efficiency and is superior to the other treatments for this condition.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 16 February 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 February 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 February 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 16 February 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16 February 2011), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 16 February 2011) 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

Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Overall only 8% of these studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Ten interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These ten interventions were: aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), intravenous glutamine, honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste and sucralfate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ten interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), 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 2005) 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

Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Nine interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These nine interventions were: allopurinol, aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, glutamine (intravenous), honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, and polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nine interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Honey as topical prophylaxis against radiochemotherapy-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of pure natural honey as prophylaxis against radiochemotherapy-induced mucositis, through clinical scoring of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis, and culturing of pathogenic oral and oropharyngeal microbes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was done in Assiut University Hospital, Egypt, between January 2005 and July 2006. Forty patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer were entered into the trial. Enrolled patients were randomised to either the treatment group, receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (with a significant area of directly visible oral and/or oropharyngeal mucosa included in the radiation fields) plus prior topical application of pure natural honey, or the control group, receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy without honey. Patients were evaluated clinically every week to assess development of radiation mucositis. Aerobic cultures and candida colonisation assessment were undertaken, via oral and oropharyngeal swabs, prior to and at the completion of irradiation, and when infection was evident.

RESULTS

In the treatment group, no patients developed grade four mucositis and only three patients (15 per cent) developed grade three mucositis. In the control group, 13 patients (65 per cent) developed grade three or four mucositis (p < 0.05). Candida colonisation was found in 15 per cent of the treatment group and 60 per cent of the control group, either during or after radiotherapy (p = 0.003). Positive cultures for aerobic pathogenic bacteria were observed in 15 per cent of the treatment group and 65 per cent of the control group, during or after radiotherapy (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that prophylactic use of pure natural honey was effective in reducing mucositis resulting from radiochemotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer.

Mucoadhesive tablet releasing iodine for treating oral infections

Iodine complexes with ethyl cellulose (EC) and hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) were prepared by immersing polymer powder in aqueous solutions of iodine. These complexes were incorporated in a mucoadhesive tablet for potential use as antimicrobial agent for treating oral infections. The release profile of iodine from the adhesive tablets was determined and the antimicrobial activity was assessed by diffusion assays using Candida albicans and Porphyromonas gingivalis cultures. Iodine was readily absorbed up to 35%w/w in the polymers. A differential scanning colorimeter (DSC) scan revealed a correlation between the endotherm peak of the complexes and the iodine content in the polymer complex. The tablets exhibited marked antifungal and antibacterial activities against the fungal/bacterial strains tested.

Emerging approaches for prophylaxis and management of oropharyngeal mucositis in cancer therapy

Oral mucositis is a common treatment-limiting side effect of cancer therapy that may have a significant impact on quality of life and on the cost of care. Oral mucositis is the most distressing complication of cancer therapy as reported by head and neck cancer patients, in patients receiving dose-dense myelosuppressive chemotherapy and in patients receiving haematopoietic stem cell transplant. Mucositis may increase the risk of local and systemic infection, particularly in myelosuppressed patients. Severe oral mucositis can lead to the need to interrupt or discontinue cancer therapy, and thus may impact cure of the primary disease. Current care of patients with mucositis is essentially palliative, and includes appropriate oral hygiene, nonirritating diet and oral care products, topical palliative mouth rinses, topical anaesthetics and use of systemic opioid analgesics. Emerging approaches for prevention and treatment of oral mucositis are developing based on an increasing understanding of the pathobiology of mucosal damage and repair. New interventions are expected to be administered based on the mechanisms of initiation, progression and resolution of the condition. The approval by the FDA of keratinocyte growth factor (palifermin; Amgen) in 2004 represents a new step in prevention of oral mucositis in stem cell transplant patients based on the increasing understanding of the pathogenesis of mucositis. Progress in the prevention and management of mucositis will improve quality of life, reduce cost of care and facilitate completion of more intensive cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy protocols. Improved management of mucositis may allow implementation of cancer treatment protocols that are currently excessively mucotoxic, but have potentially higher cure rates of the malignant disease.

Oral mucositis

Mucositis and xerostomia are the most common oral complications of the non-surgical therapy of cancer. Mucositis, a common sequel of radio- (DXR), chemo-(CXR) and radiochemo-therapy in patients with cancer, or patients requiring haemopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), has a direct and significant impact on the quality of life and cost of care, and also affects survival--because of the risk of infection. Apart from dose reduction, preventive and treatment options for mucositis are scarce, although multiple agents have been tested. Evidence suggests that cryotherapy, topical benzydamine and amifostine might provide some benefit in specific situations. The recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor Palifermin (Kepivance) was recently approved as a mucositis intervention in patients receiving conditioning regimens before HSCT for the treatment of haematological malignancies. A number of mechanistically based interventions are in various stages of development. Unfortunately, many other approaches have not been rigorously tested. This paper reviews the clinical features, prevalence, diagnosis, complications, pathogenesis, prophylaxis and management of mucositis.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results 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. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred and two studies were eligible. One hundred and thirty two were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 71 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 5217 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, amifostine, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, chlorhexidine, clarithromycin, folinic acid, glutamine, GM-CSF, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, oral care, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline, prostaglandin, sucralfate, traumeel and zinc sulphate. Of the 29 interventions included in trials, 10 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis. Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were: amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing moderate and severe mucositis RR = 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.95) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.97), antibiotic paste or pastille demonstrated a moderate benefit in preventing mucositis RR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97), hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52), and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RR = 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.91), 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.68). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, honey, oral care protocols, povidone and zinc sulphate. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient experiencing moderate or severe mucositis over a baseline incidence of 60% for amifostine is 10 (95% CI 7 to 33), antibiotic paste or pastille 13 (95% CI 8 to 56), hydrolytic enzyme 4 (95% CI 3 to 6) and ice chips 5 (95% CI 3 to 19). When the baseline incidence is 40%/90% the NNTs for amifostine are 16/7, for antibiotic paste or pastille 19/7, for hydrolytic enzyme 5/3 and for ice chips 7/3. The general reporting of RCTs was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Failure of anti-infective mouth rinses and concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis to decrease oral mucosal colonization in autologous stem cell transplantation

Autologous stem cell transplantation has augmented treatment successes. However, high-dose chemotherapy is still accompanied by dose-limiting toxicities, for example, severe mucositis. Mucosal lesions serve as portals of entry for infections. In order to reduce the oral microbial burden, we prospectively evaluated the microbiological impact of a complex regimen of mouth rinses consisting of concomitantly applied polyene antifungals, povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, sage tea, and prophylactic ciprofloxacin and fluconazole. A total of 15 patients were enrolled into this longitudinal evaluation. Colony-forming units (CFU) were quantitated from saliva, buccal and palatinal swabs during high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. The number of CFU did not show any significant changes after initiation of the mouth rinses and the prophylactic antibiotics. The median CFU count was 268 x 10(6)/ml saliva before chemotherapy and decreased after initiation of intravenous antibiotics only. Neither prophylactic nor therapeutic antifungals significantly reduced the number of cultures positive for yeasts. Since 90% of our patients had febrile neutropenia at some time point during the observation period, the approach evaluated cannot be recommended as prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia as such.

The comparative effects of povidone-iodine and normal saline mouthwashes on oral mucositis in patients after high-dose chemotherapy and APBSCT—results of a randomized multicentre study

Antimicrobial solutions are widely used in the nursing care of chemotherapy induced oral mucositis (OM). There is little evidence, however, supporting their use for reducing mucosal damage. In our study, 132 patients were randomized to use normal saline (n=65) or povidone-iodine diluted 1:100 (n=67) mouthwashes for OM prophylaxis and treatment after high-dose chemotherapy comprising BEAM or HD-L-PAM followed by autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation. The study groups were well balanced in respect of age, sex, chemotherapy and the number of CD34+ cells in the graft. No significant difference was found between the groups in respect of OM characteristics, fever of unknown origin (FUO) and other infections. The antimicrobial solution was less tolerable for patients. OM occurred significantly more often in females than in males (86% vs 60%, P=0.0016) and was worse and of longer duration. The mechanical effect of mouthwashes might have a certain importance in FUO prevention. When indicating oral rinses, the patient's individual preference and tolerance of solutions offered should be considered.

Clinical effects of flurbiprofen tooth patch on radiation-induced oral mucositis. A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Mucositis is an oral sequela of radiotherapy. In the development of mucositis several mechanisms play a role, such as inflammation and the effect of radiation on the high proliferation rate of oral basal epithelial cells. Therefore, administration of a drug with antiinflammatory and antiproliferative properties might delay the disorder and/or alleviate the severity of oral mucositis. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of flurbiprofen in a tooth patch on the development, severity and duration of pseudomembranous mucositis in patients treated with curative head and neck radiotherapy.

METHODS

The study group comprised 12 patients with a malignant tumor in the head and neck region to be treated with primary curative or postoperative radiotherapy. Patients applied once a day before sleep a flurbiprofen tooth patch to a natural tooth or upper denture during the full course of radiotherapy, starting 1 week before the onset of radiotherapy. Oral mucositis, pain, feeding, body weight and viability and maturation of epithelial cells were assessed. The results were compared with the findings in a historical control group.

RESULTS

No differences were found for severity and duration of pseudomembranous mucositis between the two groups. The onset of pseudomembranous/ulcerative mucositis occurred later in the flurbiprofen group (14.6+/-3.8 days, mean+/-SD) than in the historical control group (11+/-3.5 days; P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the flurbiprofen 15 mg tooth patch cannot prevent the development of pseudomembranous mucositis and has no influence on the duration of oral mucositis.

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.

Oral mucositis: a challenging complication of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy: part 1, pathogenesis and prophylaxis of mucositis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a common sequel of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy in patients with cancer or patients requiring hemopoietic stem cell transplants. Mucositis has a direct and significant impact on the duration of disease remission and cure rates, because it is a cancer treatment-limiting toxicity. Mucositis also affects survival because of the risk of infection and has a significant impact on the quality of life and cost of care.

METHODS

This article reviews publications on the etiopathogenesis and prevention of oral mucositis accessible from a MEDLINE search using as key words, mucositis, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hemopoietic stem cell transplant, and oral.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the current available products, ice chips and benzydamine have the strongest scientific evidence of support for prophylaxis of mucositis.

Prevention and Treatment of Oropharyngeal Mucositis Following Cancer Therapy

Oropharyngeal mucositis is an acute and distressing toxic effect of chemotherapy and head and neck irradiation. This oral sequela significantly impairs the daily functioning and quality of life of patients. The biological basis of mucositis is quite complex, involving sequential interaction of chemotherapeutic drugs or irradiation on mitosis of proliferating epithelium, a number of cytokines, and elements of oral microbial environment. Various interventions based on biological attenuation have been tested for mucositis. Such interventions have been reviewed elsewhere; however, most reviews focus on biomedical outcomes. Little attention has been paid to mucositis outcomes with oral morbidity or psychosocial aspects. The purpose of this article is to review the current research studies on the prevention and treatment of oropharyngeal mucositis following chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and bone marrow transplantation with an emphasis on biomedical, oral symptomatic, and functional impairment outcomes. In addition, further avenues of mucositis management, including psychotherapeutic intervention and integrated and stage-based treatment approaches are discussed.

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.

Topical application of honey in the management of radiation mucositis: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pure natural honey on radiation-induced mucositis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer requiring radiation to the oropharyngeal mucosal area were divided in to two groups to receive either radiation alone or radiation plus topical application of pure natural honey. Patients were treated using a 6-MV linear accelerator at a dose rate of 2 Gy per day five times a week up to a dose of 60-70 Gy. In the study arm, patients were advised to take 20 ml of pure honey 15 min before, 15 min after and 6 h post-radiation therapy. Patients were evaluated every week for the development of radiation mucositis using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading system.

MAIN RESULTS

There was significant reduction in the symptomatic grade 3/4 mucositis among honey-treated patients compared to controls; i.e. 20% versus 75% ( p 0.00058). The compliance of honey-treated group of patients was better than controls. Fifty-five percent of patients treated with topical honey showed no change or a positive gain in body weight compared to 25% in the control arm ( p 0.053), the majority of whom lost weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical application of natural honey is a simple and cost-effective treatment in radiation mucositis, which warrants further multi-centre randomised trials to validate our finding.

Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To determine the frequency of mucositis and associated outcomes in patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer through a systematic review of recently published literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

According to the study protocol, databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (English only, 1996-1999) of patients with head and neck cancer receiving RT with or without chemotherapy that reported one or more outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies (n=6181 patients) met inclusion criteria. Mucositis was defined using a variety of scoring systems. The mean incidence was 80%. Over one-half of patients (56%) who received altered fractionation RT (RT-AF) experienced severe mucositis (grades 3-4) compared to 34% of patients who received conventional RT. Rates of hospitalization due to mucositis, reported in three studies (n=700), were 16% overall and 32% for RT-AF patients. Eleven percent of patients had RT regimens interrupted or modified because of mucositis in five studies (n=1267) reporting this outcome. Data insufficiency or heterogeneity prohibited analysis of mucositis severity and other associated outcomes, such as oral pain, dysphagia and opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Mucositis is a frequent, severe toxicity in patients treated with RT for head and neck cancer. While it appears that mucositis may lead to hospitalization and treatment interruptions, its overall impact on outcomes has not been adequately investigated.

Selection of antimicrobial agents in periodontal therapy

BACKGROUND

The recognition over the past 3 decades of microbial specificity in periodontitis has afforded dental practitioners the ability to prevent and treat the disease with a variety of antimicrobial drugs. These include systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics and topical antiseptics.

RESULTS

Systemic antibiotic therapy can be essential in eliminating pathogenic bacteria that invade gingival tissue and in helping control periodontal pathogens residing in various domains of the mouth from where they may translocate to periodontal sites. Frequently used periodontal combination antibiotic therapies are metronidazole-amoxicillin (250-375 mg of each 3 x daily for 8 days) and metronidazole-ciprofloxacin (500 mg of each 2 x daily for 8 days). Microbiological analysis helps determine the optimal antibiotic therapy and effectiveness of treatment. Topical antibiotics that are commercially available as controlled release devices suffer from several potential problems, including insufficient spectrum of antimicrobial activity in some periodontal polymicrobial infections, risks of producing an antibiotic resistant microbiota, and high acquisition costs. Topical antiseptics of relevance in periodontal treatment include 10% povidone-iodine placed subgingivally by a syringe for 5 min, and 0.1% sodium hypochlorite solution applied subgingivally by patients using an irrigation device.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The present paper recommends periodontal treatment that includes a battery of professionally and patient-administered antimicrobial agents (properly prescribed systemic antibiotics, povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite subgingival irrigants, and chlorhexidine mouthrinse). Available chemotherapeutics can provide effective, safe, practical and affordable means of controlling subgingival colonization of periodontal pathogens and various types of periodontal disease.

Oral mucositis: time for more studies

Oral Mucositis (OM) is a frequent cause of severe morbidity in patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The pathophysiology of OM involves direct cytotoxic effects, local inflammatory responses, and alterations in oral microflora. There are currently no approved agents for the prevention or treatment of OM. In this review we briefly describe current knowledge of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management of OM. We then discuss investigational agents being studied in OM with a particular focus on local antimicrobial agents, hemopoietic growth factors, and cytokines. Measures to reduce the incidence of OM and/or alleviate its clinical sequelae should be incorporated into all chemotherapy or radiotherapy studies.

A research review of the current treatments for radiation-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To review the research studies on the current treatments for radiation therapy-(RT-) induced mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE search of the literature from 1966-2001.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four types of agents (i.e., antimicrobial, coating, anti-inflammatory, and cytokine-like agents) have been evaluated for the management of RT-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer. Most of the published studies had relatively small sample sizes and used inconsistent measures to evaluate the extent and severity of oral mucositis. Therefore, definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any of the agents tested in the prevention and treatment of RT-induced oral mucositis cannot be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral mucositis remains the most common complication among patients with head and neck cancer. Although a number of strategies and products are being investigated and new directions are promising, the therapies tested to date have not produced consistent results.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The most effective measure to treat RT-induced mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer is frequent oral rinsing with a bland mouthwash, such as saline or a sodium bicarbonate rinse, to reduce the amount of oral microbial flora. Dental care, consistent oral assessments, and the initiation of a standardized oral hygiene protocol before the initiation of cancer treatment are the most effective approaches for oral mucositis.

Effective, safe, practical and affordable periodontal antimicrobial therapy: where are we going, and are we there yet?

Several important trends are noticeable in the management of periodontal disease. Searching for specific risk factors for periodontal disease permits therapy planning with the intention of doing less for low-risk patients and increasing the preventive and therapeutic modalities for high-risk patients. Also, significant progress in the area of chemotherapeutic development enables dentists to increase the number of periodontitis patients receiving nondisruptive antimicrobial therapy and decreases the need for surgical treatment. Use of anti-infective chemotherapeutic and antibiotic agents has become a specialized and increasingly effective means of preventing and treating destructive periodontal disease. Local care, including subgingival application of some type of antiseptics, is widely accepted. The use of systemic antibiotics is not routine and should be reserved for aggressive and refractory periodontal infections. In general, it is better to be thoroughly familiar with a limited number of drugs and treatment methods and use them properly than to try to master a plethora of antimicrobial therapies. Combating periodontal infections is best accomplished by combined mechanical and chemotherapeutic efforts of the dental professional and the patient. The trend during recent years has been to treat periodontal infections aggressively, employing short-course antimicrobial therapy using a battery of safe and affordable antimicrobial agents, each exhibiting high activity against various periodontal pathogens and administered in ways to concurrently affect pathogens residing in different oral ecological niches, followed by regular maintenance visits having a strong anti-infective emphasis. At the beginning of therapy, patients should be assigned self-help tasks having maximal antimicrobial effectiveness, with a focus on control of the subgingival periodontopathic microbiota. When patients see positive clinical results from their daily oral hygiene efforts, they are motivated to remain active participants in managing their periodontal condition. This article emphasizes anti-infective periodontal therapies that are effective and, when properly administered, are essentially nontoxic; are widely available around the world to dentists as well as to patients; and are acceptable to most patients in terms of methods of application, supporting oral hygiene efforts and financial costs. We believe that, with improved knowledge of the periodontopathic microbiota, with the availability of microbiological tests to identify periodontal pathogens and optimal therapy, with various safe and affordable yet effective antimicrobial agents and therapies and, eventually, with the development of one or more effective vaccines, the future looks very bright for patients at risk for or suffering from destructive periodontal disease.

Prophylactic use of amifostine to prevent radiochemotherapy-induced mucositis and xerostomia in head-and-neck cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the prophylactic properties of amifostine against acute and late toxicities from radiochemotherapy in patients with head-and-neck cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty patients were randomized to receive conventional radiotherapy (RT) (2-Gy fractions, 5 days weekly, to a total of 60-74 Gy, depending on the tumor localization and TNM classification) and carboplatin (90 mg/m(2) infusion once per week before RT). Amifostine (300 mg/m(2)) was administered in the study group only 15-30 min before RT for 6-7.5 weeks. The primary study end point was the grading of acute and late nonhematologic toxicities (mucositis, dysphagia, xerostomia) induced by radiochemotherapy. Secondary end points included treatment duration, hematologic toxicity, and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

The treatment duration was significantly shorter in the amifostine-treated group (p = 0.013), because treatment interruptions were more frequent in the control group. Acute toxicities (mucositis and dysphagia) were less severe in the amifostine-treated group. By Week 3, all in the control group experienced Grade 2 mucositis compared with only 9% in the amifostine-treated group (p <0.0001). By Week 5, 52.2% of the patients in the control group experienced Grade 4 mucositis compared with 4.5% in the amifostine-treated group (p = 0.0006). Similar results were obtained for dysphagia. At 3 months of follow-up, only 27% of patients in the study group experienced Grade 2 xerostomia compared with 73.9% in the control group (p = 0.0001). Eighteen months after cessation of therapy, the proportion of patients with Grade 2 xerostomia was 4.5% vs. 30.4% for each respective treatment group (p = 0.047). Cytoprotection with amifostine did not affect treatment outcome, with 90.9% complete responses in the amifostine-treated group compared with 78.3% in the control group (p = 0.414).

CONCLUSION

Amifostine was effective in reducing mucositis and dysphagia resulting from radiochemotherapy in patients with head-and-neck cancer. Furthermore, amifostine reduced the severity of late xerostomia, a side effect of RT with long-lasting consequences. Amifostine treatment did not affect the clinical outcome.

Mucositis reduction by selective elimination of oral flora in irradiated cancers of the head and neck: a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized study

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that aerobic Gram-negative bacteria (AGNB) play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of radiation-induced mucositis; consequently, selective elimination of these bacteria from the oral flora should result in a reduction of the mucositis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Head-and-neck cancer patients, when scheduled for treatment by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), were randomized for prophylactic treatment with an oral paste containing either a placebo or a combination of the antibiotics polymyxin E, tobramycin, and amphotericin B (PTA group). Weekly, the objective and subjective mucositis scores and microbiologic counts of the oral flora were noted. The primary study endpoint was the mucositis grade after 3 weeks of EBRT.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were evaluable. No statistically significant difference for the objective and subjective mucositis scores was observed between the two study arms (p = 0.33). The percentage of patients with positive cultures of AGNB was significantly reduced in the PTA group (p = 0.01). However, complete eradication of AGNB was not achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective elimination of AGNB of the oral flora did not result in a reduction of radiation-induced mucositis and therefore does not support the hypothesis that these bacteria play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of mucositis.