Children's acceptance and tolerance of chlorhexidine and benzydamine oral rinses in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced oropharyngeal mucositis

Effects of chlorhexidine use on periodontal health during fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Proper oral hygiene and absence of periodontal inflammation is pre-requisite for orthodontic treatment. Chlorhexidine (CHX) is an established oral antiseptic used in the treatment of periodontal disease, but its role in orthodontic therapy is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of adjunct use of CHX-containing products in maintaining gingival health among orthodontic patients with fixed appliances.

SEARCH METHODS

Five databases were searched without limitations up to August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing Gingival Index (GI) (primary outcome), Plaque Index (PI), Bleeding Index (BI), or Pocket Probing Depth (PPD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done independently in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were conducted, followed by sensitivity and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs (1001 patients) were included assessing CHX-containing mouthwashes (n = 11), toothpastes (n = 2), gels (n = 3), or varnishes (n = 4) compared to placebo/control (n = 19) or sodium fluoride-products (n = 4). In the short-term, CHX-containing mouthwash was associated with lower GI (n = 9; MD = -0.68; 95% CI = -0.97 to -0.38; P < 0.001; high quality), lower PI (n = 9; MD = -0.65; 95% CI = -0.86 to -0.43; P < 0.001; high quality), lower BI (n = 2; SMD = -1.61; 95% CI = -2.99 to -0.22; P = 0.02; low quality), and lower PPD (n = 2; MD = -0.60 mm; 95% CI = -1.06 to -0.14 mm; P = 0.01; low quality). No considerable benefits were found from the use of CHX-gel or CHX-varnish in terms of GI, PI, or PPD (P > 0.05/low quality in all instances). Use of a CHX-containing toothpaste was more effective in lowering PI (Heintze-index) than adjunct use of fluoride-containing mouthwash (n = 2; MD = -5.24; 95% CI = -10.46 to -0.02; P = 0.04), but not GI (P = 0.68) or BI (P = 0.27), while sensitivity analyses indicated robustness.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunct use of CHX mouthwash during fixed-appliance treatment is associated with improved gingival inflammation, plaque control, and pocket depths, but caution is warranted and recommendations about CHX use during orthodontic treatment of children/adults should consider the heterogeneous patient response, cost-effectiveness, and potential adverse effects.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration (CRD42021228759).

Effects of benzydamine and mouthwashes containing benzydamine on Candida albicans adhesion, biofilm formation, regrowth, and persistence

Objectives

To assess the effects of benzydamine and mouthwashes (MoWs) containing benzydamine on different stages of Candida albicans biofilm: adhesion, formation, persistence, and regrowth (if perturbed).

Materials and methods

C. albicans CA1398, carrying the bioluminescence ACT1p-gLUC59 fusion product, was employed. Fungal cells were exposed for 1′, 5′, or 15′ to 4 different benzydamine concentrations (0.075 to 0.6%) to 2 mouthwashes (MoWs) containing benzydamine and to a placebo MoW (without benzydamine). Treated cells were tested for adhesion (90 min) and biofilm formation (24-h assay). Next, 24- and 48-h-old biofilms were exposed to benzydamine and MoWs to assess regrowth and persistence, respectively. The effects of benzydamine, MoWs containing benzydamine, and placebo on different biofilm stages were quantified by bioluminescence assay and by the production of quorum sensing (QS) molecules.

Results

Benzydamine and MoWs containing benzydamine impaired C. albicans ability to adhere and form biofilm, counteracted C. albicans persistence and regrowth, and impaired a 48-h-old biofilm. Some of these effects paralleled with alterations in QS molecule secretion.

Conclusions

Our results show for the first time that benzydamine and MoWs containing benzydamine impair C. albicans capacity to form biofilm and counteract biofilm persistence and regrowth.

Clinical relevance

Benzydamine and MoWs containing benzydamine capacity to affect C. albicans biofilm provides an interesting tool to prevent and treat oral candidiasis. Likely, restraining C. albicans colonization through daily oral hygiene may counteract colonization and persistence by other critical oral pathogens, such as Streptococcus mutans, whose increased virulence has been linked to the presence of C. albicans biofilm.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-021-04330-8.

MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis: sub-analysis of current interventions for the management of oral mucositis in pediatric cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this sub-analysis was to highlight the MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in pediatric patients and to present unique considerations in this patient population.

METHODS

This sub-analysis of the pediatric patient population is based on the systematic review conducted by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISSO) published in 2019/2020. Studies were scored and assigned a level of evidence based on previously published criteria. Data regarding adverse effects and compliance was collected from the original publications.

RESULTS

A total of 45 papers were included and assessed in this sub-analysis, including 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Chewing gum was demonstrated to be not effective in preventing OM in pediatric cancer patients in 2 RCTs. The efficacy of all other interventions could not be determined based on the available literature.

CONCLUSION

There is limited or conflicting evidence about interventions for the management of OM in pediatric cancer patients, except for chewing gum which was ineffective for prevention. Therefore, currently, data from adult studies may need to be extrapolated for the management of pediatric patients. Honey and photobiomodulation therapy in this patient population had encouraging potential. Implementation of a basic oral care protocol is advised amid lack of high level of evidence studies.

Evaluating the additive effect of Persica and chlorhexidine mouthwashes on oral health status of children receiving chemotherapy for their hematomalignancy: A randomized clinical trial

Background

No definitive protocol has been introduced for treatment or prevention of chemotherapy induced mucositis. The aim of this study was to assess the additive effect of Persica and chlorhexidine on chemotherapy induced mucositis of children with hematomalignancies.

Material and Methods

This randomized clinical trial was performed on 44 children aged 6 to 12 years who were under a similar maintenance chemotherapy protocol for their hematomalignancies. The clinician instructed oral hygiene cares to the patients and their parents and the severity of the mucositis and oral health status of patients were evaluated according to Oral Assessment Guide index. Then, the patients were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups and were instructed to rinse either with Persica oral drops or normal saline, twice a day for two weeks. Subsequently, the patients in both groups were educated to rinse with chlorhexidine for 30 seconds and avoid eating for an hour. Second and third oral examinations were performed on the 8th and 15th day using the same questionnaire.

Results

Comparing severity of mucositis and oral health status of patients did not show any significant difference between treatment groups in either of examination sessions (p>0.05). However, both treatment groups showed statistically significant oral health improvement, in terms of mucositis, plaque accumulation and gingival condition, in 14 days following mouthrinses administration (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Both mouth-rinse combinations were effective on mucositis, plaque and gingival status of children receiving chemotherapy. However, Persica does not seem to pose additional effect on chlorhexidine in decreasing severity of chemotherapy induced mucositis.

Key words:Mucositis, chemotherapy, children, chlorhexidine, Persica.

Systematic review of anti-inflammatory agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of anti-inflammatory agents in the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/ International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) subcommittee on mucositis guideline update. 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 clinical practice guidelines published in 2014. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 11 new papers across five interventions were examined. The recommendation for the use of benzydamine mouthwash for the prevention of radiotherapy-induced mucositis remained unchanged. New suggestion for the use of the same for prevention of mucositis associated with chemoradiotherapy was made. No guideline was possible for any other anti-inflammatory agents due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the anti-inflammatory agents studied for oral mucositis, the evidence supports the use of benzydamine mouthwash in the specific populations listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on other (class of agents) interventions and in other cancer treatment settings.

Randomized control trial of benzydamine HCl versus sodium bicarbonate for prophylaxis of concurrent chemoradiation-induced oral mucositis

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy of benzydamine HCl with sodium bicarbonate in the prevention of concurrent chemoradiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS

Sixty locally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with high-dose radiotherapy concurrently with platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either benzydamine HCl or sodium bicarbonate from the first day of treatment to 2 weeks after the completion of treatment. The total score for mucositis, based on the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS), was used for the assessment, conducted weekly during the treatment period and at the fourth week of the follow-up. Pain score, all prescribed medications, and tube feeding needs were also recorded and compared.

RESULTS

The median of total OMAS score was statistically significant lower in patients who received benzydamine HCl during concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) than in those who received sodium bicarbonate, (p value < 0.001). There was no difference in median pain score, (p value = 0.52). Nineteen percent of patients in sodium bicarbonate arm needed oral antifungal agents whereas none in the benzydamine HCl arm required such medications, (p value = 0.06). Tube feeding needs and the compliance of CCRT were not different between the two study arms.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing high-dose radiotherapy concurrently with platinum-based chemotherapy, using benzydamine HCl mouthwash as a preventive approach was superior to basic oral care using sodium bicarbonate mouthwash in terms of reducing the severity of oral mucositis and encouraging trend for the less need of oral antifungal drugs.

Clinical effectiveness of palifermin in prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a case-control study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of palifermin, an N-terminal truncated version of endogenous keratinocyte growth factor, in the control of oral mucositis during antiblastic therapy. Twenty patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia were treated with palifermin, and compared to a control group with the same number of subjects and similar inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis were performed to compare the outcomes in the treatment vs. control groups. In the treatment group, we found a statistically significant reduction in the duration of parenteral nutrition (P=0.002), duration of mucositis (P=0.003) and the average grade of mucositis (P=0.03). The statistical analysis showed that the drug was able to decrease the severity of mucositis. These data, although preliminary, suggest that palifermin could be a valid therapeutic adjuvant to improve the quality of life of patients suffering from leukaemia.

The effect of olive leaf extract in decreasing the expression of two pro-inflammatory cytokines in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is the most common side effects of chemotherapy of all cancer with intensive treatments regimen, and is the most common side effects of head and neck radiation therapy. For steam cell transplantation, its also regarded as the most debilitating side effects.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study were to assess the effect of a mouth rinse containing olive leaf extract (OLE) in preventing severe oral mucositis in patients receiving chemotherapy, and to estimate its effect in decreasing pro-inflammatory cytokine production after chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study utilized a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, and cross-over design. Twenty-five patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive a mouth wash containing OLE, benzydamine hydrochloride, or placebo in 3 different cycles of chemotherapy. Oral mucositis severity was assessed using the World Health Organization criteria and Oral Mycositis Assessment Scale. Patients were evaluated weekly until 15 days after chemotherapy for each cycle. Salivary levels of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) were evaluated by enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay.

RESULTS

Oral mucositis rates and severity after 2 weeks were significantly lower in the OLE and benzydamine groups compared to the placebo group. The IL-1β and TNF-α levels were significantly decreased in the OLE group compared to the other groups.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary findings indicate that OLE is effective in reducing IL-1β and TNF-α levels after chemotherapy and exert a therapeutic effect and prevent development of severe oral mucositis.

Systematic review of anti-inflammatory agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this project was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of anti-inflammatory agents for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND 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. The body of evidence for use of each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible.

RESULTS

Forty-one papers were reviewed. There was sufficient evidence to recommend the use of benzydamine mouthwash for the prevention of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients receiving moderate-dose radiation therapy (up to 50 Gy), without concomitant chemotherapy. A new suggestion was developed against the use of misoprostol mouthwash for the prevention of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Positive results were reported for some other anti-inflammatory agents. However, no guidelines were able to be developed for any other agents due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of anti-inflammatory agents continues to be a promising strategy for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis. Additional well-designed studies are needed to examine the use of this class of agents for oral mucositis.

Oral mucositis in children suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

Aim of the study

Oral mucositis is the most commonly reported side effect observed in neoplastic patients treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy of the head and neck region as well as in patients who have received a haematopoietic stem cell transplant. The aim of the study was to assess the oral mucosa status in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) during antineoplastic therapy.

Material and methods

The clinical examination included 78 children aged 2-18 with ALL. The clinical examination was conducted using the dental preset tray. The condition of the oral mucosa was determined using the WHO scale for oral mucositis.

Results

In the first period of antineoplastic therapy the pathological lesions of the oral mucosa of the mucositis type were observed among the examined patients. The lesions had various levels of intensity. Pain was found to be the primary symptom of oral mucositis. In this study the following were observed: local erythema of the oral mucosa in 35%, white pseudomembranous lesions in 18%, erosions in 40% and oral ulcerative lesions in 4% of patients who underwent the antineoplastic therapy. Oral mucositis was observed in 3.17% of children after 6 months of chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Local treatment of oral mucositis with polyantibiotic-antifungal mixture, supporting antifungal systemic treatment, and improving the overall peripheral blood conditions in children suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia improve the condition of the oral mucosa.

Use of chlorhexidine mouthwash in children receiving chemotherapy: a review of literature

The aim of this literature review was to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthwash as an intervention in children receiving chemotherapy, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. A literature search was performed between 1980 and 2010. The control groups consisted of placebo, no intervention, or another intervention group. Oral mucositis was scored by either the World Health Organization scale or modified Oral Assessment Guide. The review of literature included 5 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, in which chlorhexidine was evaluated and 4 studies showed a significant preventive effect on the development or severity of oral mucositis; the remaining study showed no benefit of using chlorhexidine mouthwash when compared with the placebo group. Ultimately, it can be suggested from the data presented here that chlorhexidine may play a part in reducing oral mucosal damage during chemotherapy for children with cancer, possibly due to a reduction in oral microflora and plaque.

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.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Self-perception of side effects by adolescents in a chlorhexidine-fluoride-based preventive oral health program

Objective:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of adverse effects reported by adolescents following 14 days of use of a mouthrinse containing 0.05% NaF+0.12% chlorhexidine.

Methods:

This double-blind study was developed as part of a randomized clinical trial. The adolescents enrolled to the study were randomly divided into two groups to use either: 0.05% NaF+0.12% chlorhexidine (G1, n=85) or 0.05% NaF (G2, n=85). Both groups used a 10mL solution of the mouthwash during 1 minute daily for 2 weeks under supervision. After that period, the subject's acceptance of taste was measured using a verbal descriptive scale (Labeled Magnitude Scale - LMS)¹¹. Participants were also interviewed regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects during treatment (temporary palate disorders, tooth staining or unpleasant taste). The proportional differences between the groups were tested using the chi-square test.

Results:

Palate changes were reported by 26% of participants of each group; 17.7% of G1 and 32% of G2 reported an unpleasant taste (p = 0.062), while staining was reported by 55% of G1 and 68.9% of G2 (p = 0.117). Absenteeism rates were similar in both groups (G1= 2.58 ± 2.69; G2=2.81 ± 2.39), p=0.362.

Conclusion:

adherence was high in both groups and side effects reported by subjects were not perceived by them as being important. Since subjects' acceptance and compliance is fundamental to the success of an oral health program, chlorhexidine-fluoride could be a useful resource in a program of plaque control.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

The role of basic oral care and good clinical practice principles in the management of oral mucositis

BACKGROUND

The Basic Oral Care Group is one of eight subcommittees functioning within the Mucositis Study Group Guidelines Panel of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The Basic Oral Care Group, comprised of the four authors of this paper, represented the disciplines of nursing (DBM, JJ), dentistry (MEPC), and pediatric dentistry (PW). This group reviewed research and clinical literature to update the original 2004 Mucositis Management Guidelines in the areas of basic oral care, bland rinses, protocols and education, and good clinical practices such as pain management, oral assessment, oral care, and dental care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over 100 articles published between 2000 and 2005 were identified, and 32 of these were useful for the analysis. Each article was rated by at least two authors using a structured rating form and systematic determination of levels of evidence, based on the American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria. Discussion at the 2005 MASCC/ISOO Geneva pre-conference meeting of the Guidelines Panel resulted in the development of consensus on the interpretation of the literature.

RESULTS

Based on the literature and on Panel discussions, a revision of the original guidelines for protocols and education was produced by the group, and they developed a set of recommendations related to good clinical practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Although research remains scanty for components of basic oral care, bland rinses, protocols, and education, the original 2004 guidelines with the help of newer literature from 2000 to 2005 and expert consensus among the Guidelines Panel enabled the development of useful clinical practice guidelines for managing oral mucositis in patients receiving cancer treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy.