Survey of topical oral solutions for the treatment of chemo-induced oral mucositis

Title: Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Complications and Prophylaxis Strategies

Cancer is currently a significant therapeutic challenge and is frequently connected with numerous adverse effects. Despite many improvements in chemotherapy, oral complications are common, leading to poor quality of life and chemotherapeutic dose reduction, which impair survival. This review summarizes the most common dental complications in patients receiving chemotherapy. We mainly focus on oral mucositis as it is a major cause of dose-limiting toxicity. Furthermore, oral candidiasis, viral infections, and xerostomia will be discussed. Conclusions: preventing complications is significantly more important than treating them. All patients beginning systemic anticancer treatment should undergo a thorough oral examination and get appropriate prophylaxis.

Effects of an oral mucosa protective formulation on chemotherapy- and/or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis: a prospective study

Background

Oral mucositis (OM) associated with cancer treatment not only impairs patients’ quality of life but also causes treatment delays or changes. This prospective exploratory study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Episil® oral liquid, which is an approved protective formulation for the oral mucosa in patients with OM. The extent of the pain-relieving effect, feeling during use, and adverse events or problems were evaluated.

Methods

In total, 10 Japanese cancer patients with OM receiving chemotherapy, pretreatment therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or radiation therapy for head and neck cancer were enrolled.

Results

A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess oral pain intensity due to OM. Compared to baseline, the mean NRS began to decrease at 5 min after using Episil® (7.1 ± 1.4 to 4.6 ± 2.87; p = 0.264). A significant decrease was observed in the pain score after using Episil® compared with that before using Episil®, and this effect lasted up to 120 min. The protective effects of Episil® were observed 3–5 min after application. Some patients felt slight soreness or discomfort when applying Episil®. However, this discomfort due to Episil®’s stimulation was within the allowable range and transient. No adverse events were observed in any of the cases.

Conclusions

The results of this prospective study showed that Episil® could be an effective treatment to relieve oral pain in Japanese patients with moderate to severe OM, and this newly approved product might adequately support patients’ oral intake.

Trial registration

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) (UMIN000031921).

Pharmacological Management of Common Soft Tissue Lesions of the Oral Cavity

Soft tissue lesions commonly seen in the oral cavity tend to overlap in their onset, presentation, and location making it difficult to appreciate their etiology. In some instances, common oral soft tissue lesions can create confusion due to similar clinical appearance or unusual presentation; therefore, proper diagnosis of the lesion is key in pharmacologic management. In ulcerative conditions, topical steroids can decrease the symptoms and improve healing time, but do not affect the recurrence rate. Always be suspicious of soft tissue lesions that are nonresolving or recurrent lesions as they may warrant further investigation to rule out malignancy or associated systemic conditions. This article discusses key clinical presentations and the proper topical and systemic pharmacologic treatments.

Breakdown of Symbiosis in Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

Oral mucositis is an acute side effect of radiation therapy that is especially common with head and neck cancer treatment. In recent years, several studies have revealed the predisposing factors for mucositis, leading to the pre-treatment of patients to deter the development of opportunistic oral fungal infections. Although many clinical protocols already advise the use of probiotics to counteract inflammation and fungal colonization, preclinical studies are needed to better delineate the mechanisms by which a host may acquire benefits via co-evolution with oral microbiota, probiotics, and fungal commensals, such as Candida albicans, especially during acute inflammation. Here, we review the current understanding of radiation therapy-dependent oral mucositis in terms of pathology, prevention, treatment, and related opportunistic infections, with a final focus on the oral microbiome and how it may be important for future therapy.

Treatment for Oral Mucositis-Current Options and an Update of Small Molecules Under Development

OPINION STATEMENT

Despite its history as one of the most impactful toxicities associated with cytotoxic cancer therapy, oral mucositis (OM) remains an unmet clinical need which affects hundreds of thousands of patients. Descriptions of its complex pathogenesis have provided mechanistic targets which are being exploited to develop an effective therapeutic intervention. Favorable results of recently completed clinical trials in which agents focused on interrupting the early stages of the mucositis biological cascade were assessed provide reason for optimism, not only for oral mucositis but also for halo indications which share its pathobiogenesis.

Swellable polymeric particles for the local delivery of budesonide in oral mucositis

Topical drug delivery in the oral mucosa has its set of challenges due to the unique anatomical and physiological features of the oral cavity. As such, the outcomes of local pharmacological treatments in oral disorders can fail due to unsuccessfully drug delivery. Oral mucositis, a severe inflammatory and ulcerative side effect of oncological treatments, is one of such diseases. Although the damaged tissue is within reach, no approved topical drug treatment is available. Several strategies based on its physiopathology have been implemented and clinically used. Even so, results tend to lack or be insufficient to improve patient's quality of life. The use of corticosteroids has been employed in such strategies due to their strong anti-inflammatory action. Typically, these are administrated in simple liquid formulations, where the drug is dispersed or solubilized, lacking the ability to maintain local concentration. In this work, we propose the development of a biocompatible delivery system with boosted abilities of retention and control release of budesonide, a corticosteroid with an elevated ratio of topical anti-inflammatory to systemic action. Through spray-drying, polymeric particles of Chitosan and Eudragit® E PO were produced and characterized for the vectorization of this drug.

Characterization of Tetracycline Hydrochloride Compounded in a Miracle Mouthwash Formulation

Miracle mouthwash (MMW) is a commonly prescribed oral formulation compounded with varying active ingredients, depending on purpose of treatment. Due to patient-to-patient customization, the solubility, stability, and solid-state characteristics of the active ingredients may not be known after compounding. This study found that the common antibiotic, tetracycline hydrochloride (HCl), compounded in MMW formulations that contained dexamethasone elixir and diphenhydramine, underwent significant physical-chemical changes. Simulated patient conditions demonstrated appreciable fluctuations from the target content of 50 mg tetracycline HCl per teaspoon over 15 days. The lowest tetracycline content sampled was 32.5 mg, while the highest content sampled was 53.0 mg. Although tetracycline HCl went into solution after compounding, tetracycline did not remain in solution. In fact, the amount of tetracycline in solution declined exponentially, with over two-thirds of tetracycline precipitating out within the first day of compounding and 14% remaining in solution after 15 days. Crystals that formed within the MMW formulation were analyzed using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), which confirmed a solvent-mediated phase transformation of tetracycline HCl to tetracycline hexahydrate. For tetracycline in solution, pH had a significant effect on chemical degradation. Therefore, tetracycline HCl compounded in MMW formulations can have significant physical-chemical stability changes, possibly impacting patient dosing.

Effect of Doxepin Mouthwash or Diphenhydramine-Lidocaine-Antacid Mouthwash vs Placebo on Radiotherapy-Related Oral Mucositis Pain: The Alliance A221304 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain. A common mouthwash comprising diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid is also widely used.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash for the treatment of oral mucositis-related pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A phase 3 randomized trial was conducted from November 1, 2014, to May 16, 2016, at 30 US institutions and included 275 patients who underwent definitive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and were followed up for a maximum of 28 days.

INTERVENTIONS

Ninety-two patients were randomized to doxepin mouthwash (25 mg/5 mL water); 91 patients to diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid; and 92 patients to placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash compared with a single dose of placebo. The minimal clinically important difference was a 3.5-point change. The secondary end points included drowsiness, unpleasant taste, and stinging or burning. All scales ranged from 0 (best) to 10 (worst).

RESULTS

Among the 275 patients randomized (median age, 61 years; 58 [21%] women), 227 (83%) completed treatment per protocol. Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.6 points in the doxepin mouthwash group, by 11.7 points in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group, and by 8.7 points in the placebo group. The between-group difference was 2.9 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.0; P = .02) for doxepin mouthwash vs placebo and 3.0 points (95% CI, 0.1-5.9; P = .004) for diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo. More drowsiness was reported with doxepin mouthwash vs placebo (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-4.0]; P = .03), unpleasant taste (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-3.0]; P = .002), and stinging or burning (by 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.5-5.0]; P < .001). Maximum grade 3 adverse events for the doxepin mouthwash occurred in 3 patients (4%); diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash, 3 (4%); and placebo, 2 (2%). Fatigue was reported by 5 patients (6%) in the doxepin mouthwash group and no patients in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy, the use of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administration; however, the effect size was less than the minimal clinically important difference. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02229539.

Pharmacological modulation of radiation-induced oral mucosal complications

Radiation-induced mucositis is a common toxicity, especially in patients with head and neck cancers. Despite recent technological advances in radiation therapy, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, radiation-induced mucositis is still causing treatment disruptions, negatively affecting patients' long and short term quality of life, and impacting medical resources use with economic consequences. The objective of this article was to review the latest updates in the management of radiation-induced mucositis, with a focus on pharmaceutical strategies for the prevention or treatment of mucositis. Although numerous studies analysing the prevention and management of oral radiation-induced mucositis have been conducted, there are still few reliable data to guide daily clinical practice. Furthermore, most of the tested drugs have shown no (anti-inflammatory cytokine, growth factors) or limited (palifermin) effect. Therapies for acute oral mucositis are predominantly focused on improving oral hygiene and providing symptoms control. Although low-level laser therapy proved efficient in preventing radiation-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer, this intervention requires equipment and trained medical staff, and is therefore insufficiently developed in clinical routine. New effective pharmacological agents able to prevent or reverse radio-induced mucositis are required.

Challenges in the local delivery of peptides and proteins for oral mucositis management

Oral mucositis, a common inflammatory side effect of oncological treatments, is a disorder of the oral mucosa that can cause painful ulcerations, local motor disabilities, and an increased risk of infections. Due to the discomfort it produces and the associated health risks, it can lead to cancer treatment restrains, such as the need for dose reduction, cycle delays or abandonment. Current mucositis management has low efficiency in prevention and treatment. A topical drug application for a local action can be a more effective approach than systemic routes when addressing oral cavity pathologies. Local delivery of growth factors, antibodies, and anti-inflammatory cytokines have shown promising results. However, due to the peptide and protein nature of these novel agents, and the several anatomic, physiological and environmental challenges of the oral cavity, their local action might be limited when using traditional delivering systems. This review is an awareness of the issues and strategies in the local delivery of macromolecules for the management of oral mucositis.

Doxepin for Radiation Therapy-Induced Mucositis Pain in the Treatment of Oral Cancers

Radiotherapy (RT), an integral part of the oncologic treatment for patients with head and neck cancer, can cause adverse side effects such as oral mucositis (OM). Pain from OM can impact a patient’s quality of life and interrupt RT treatment schedules, which decreases the probability for achieving cancer cure. Conventionally, RT-induced OM pain is treated with analgesics and/or mouthwash rinses. Doxepin, a traditional tricyclic antidepressant with analgesic and anesthetic properties when applied topically to the mucosa, has been shown to lower OM pain in multiple single-arm trials (Epstein et al.) and more recently, in a placebo-controlled crossover study (Leenstra and Miller et al.). Currently, a placebo-controlled study (Sio and Miller et al.) using doxepin for esophagitis pain caused by RT to the thorax is underway. Doxepin will also be further compared with magic mouthwash and a placebo solution in a three-arm trial (Miller and Sio et al.) with head and neck cancer patients with OM pain caused by RT. Doxepin may represent a new standard for treating RT-induced OM pain in the future.

mTOR inhibitor-associated stomatitis (mIAS) in three patients with cancer treated with everolimus

Mammalian targets of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR inhibitors, mTORI) are indicated for the management of several cancer types, including hormone receptor--positive or HER2-negative breast cancer, advanced renal cell carcinoma, advanced neuroendocrine tumors of pancreatic origin, and tuberous sclerosis complex-related tumors. Among the most common adverse events of mTORI medication are discrete, large, solitary or multiple, superficial ulcers, almost exclusively situated on nonkeratinized oral mucosa, described as mTORI-associated stomatitis (mIAS). We describe the clinical presentation, course, and management of mIAS in three patients receiving the mTORI everolimus (Afinitor, Novartis, East Hanover, NJ). In two patients, mIAS manifested 9 and 30 days after first using everolimus, respectively, whereas in the third patient, it recurred 3 months after re-introduction of everolimus. Oral rinses with a "magic mouthwash" solution (dexamethasone oral drops solution 2 mg/mL × 10 mL, lidocaine gel 2% × 30 g, doxycycline suspension 50 mg/5 mL × 60 mL, and sucralfate oral suspension 1000 mg/5 mL × 150 mL, dissolved in sodium chloride 0.9% × 2000 mL) four times daily proved helpful in alleviating the symptoms, and the ulcers healed in 4 to 15 days. No side effects were recorded, and dose reduction or discontinuation of everolimus was not necessitated in two cases.

Multi-institutional, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a mucoadhesive hydrogel (MuGard) in mitigating oral mucositis symptoms in patients being treated with chemoradiation therapy for cancers of the head and neck

BACKGROUND

The objective of this trial was to determine how a mucoadhesive hydrogel (MuGard), a marketed medical device, would fare when tested with the strictness of a conventional multi‐institutional, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled study format.

METHODS

A total of 120 subjects planned to receive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for treatment of head and neck cancers were randomized to receive either MuGard or sham control rinse (SC) during CRT. Subjects completed the validated Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire. Weight, opiate use, and World Health Organization (WHO) oral mucositis (OM) scores were recorded. Subjects who dosed at least once daily during the first 2.5 weeks of CRT were included in the efficacy analysis.

RESULTS

Of 120 subjects enrolled, 78 (SC, N = 41; MuGard, N = 37) were eligible for efficacy analysis. Both cohorts were similar in demographics, baseline characteristics, primary tumor type, and planned CRT regimen. MuGard effectively mitigated OM symptoms as reflected by area under the curve of daily patient‐reported oral soreness (P = .034) and WHO scores on the last day of radiation therapy (P = .038). MuGard was also associated with nonsignificant trends related to therapeutic benefit including opioid use duration, and OM scores (WHO criteria) at CRT week 4. Rinse compliance was identical between cohorts. No significant adverse events were reported, and the adverse event incidence was similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing MuGard, a rinse marketed as a device, in a standard clinical trial format demonstrated its superiority to SC in mitigating OM symptoms, delaying OM progression, and its safety and tolerability. Cancer 2014;120:1433–1440. © 2014 Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals. Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

In a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, the mucoadhesive hydrogel MuGard proved to be superior to saline‐bicarbonate rinse in mitigating oral mucositis (OM) symptoms and delaying OM progression. MuGard was safe and well‐tolerated, and favorably affected the rate and incidence of ulcerative lesions, consistent with the patient‐reported outcomes.

Oral complications and management strategies for patients undergoing cancer therapy

With cancer survival rate climbing up over the past three decades, quality of life for cancer patients has become an issue of major concern. Oral health plays an important part in one's overall quality of life. However, oral health status can be severely hampered by side effects of cancer therapies including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Moreover, prevention and treatment of these complications are often overlooked in clinical practice. The present paper aims at drawing health care professionals' attention to oral complications associated with cancer therapy by giving a comprehensive review. Brief comments on contemporary cancer therapies will be given first, followed by detailed description of oral complications associated with cancer therapy. Finally, a summary of preventive strategies and treatment options for common oral complications including oral mucositis, oral infections, xerostomia, and dysgeusia will be given.

Prevention and management of radiation-induced dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia

Purpose

Current strategies for preventing and managing radiation-induced dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia are reviewed, with an emphasis on pharmacologic interventions.

Summary

Nearly two thirds of all patients with cancer receive radiation therapy during the course of treatment, frequently resulting in acute skin and mucosal toxicities. The severity of radiotherapy-associated toxicities varies according to multiple treatment- and patient-related factors (e.g., total radiation dose and dose fractionation schedule, volume of organ or tissue irradiated, use of concurrent versus sequential chemotherapy, comorbid conditions, functional performance status). Three major radiation toxicities encountered in clinical practice are (1) radiation dermatitis, typically managed with a variety of topical agents such as water-based moisturizing creams or lotions, topical steroids, antiinflammatory emulsions, and wound dressings, (2) radiation-induced oral mucositis, which can be managed through proper basic oral care practices, appropriate pain management, and the use of medicated mouthwashes and oral rinses and gels, and (3) radiation-induced xerostomia, which can be alleviated with saliva substitutes, moistening agents, and sialagogues. Pharmacists involved in the care of patients receiving radiotherapy can play an important role in optimizing symptom control, educating patients on self-care strategies, and adverse effect monitoring and reporting.

Conclusion

Radiation-induced dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia can cause significant morbidity and diminished quality of life. Pharmacologic interventions for the prevention and treatment of these toxicities include topical agents for dermatitis; oral products, analgesics, and palifermin for mucositis; and amifostine, saliva substitutes, and pilocarpine for xerostomia.

A double blind, randomised placebo controlled trial of topical 2% viscous lidocaine in improving oral intake in children with painful infectious mouth conditions

Background

Painful infectious mouth conditions are a common presentation to emergency departments. Although self limiting, painful ulcerative lesions and inflamed mucosa can decrease oral intake and can lead to dehydration. Oral analgesia is of limited efficacy and is often refused by the patient. Despite widespread use of oral 2% viscous lidocaine for many years, there is little evidence for its efficacy as an analgesic and in aiding oral intake in children with painful infectious mouth conditions. This study aims to establish the effectiveness of 2% viscous lidocaine in increasing oral intake in these children by comparing it with placebo.

Methods/Design

This study is a randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial of children between 6 months and 8 years of age with painful infectious mouth conditions defined as gingivostomatitis (herpetic or non herpetic), ulcerative pharyngitis, herpangina and hand foot and mouth disease as assessed by the treating clinician in association with a history of poor oral fluid intake. It will be conducted at a single tertiary paediatric emergency department in Melbourne Australia.

20 patients have already been randomised to receive 2% lidocaine or placebo in a pilot study to determine the sample size in a preplanned adaptive design. A further 80 patients will be randomised to receive either 2% lidocaine or placebo. The placebo agent is identical to lidocaine in terms of appearance, flavour and smell. All clinical and research staff involved, patients and their parents will be blinded to treatment allocation.

The primary endpoint is the amount of fluid ingested by each child, expressed in ml/kg, within 60 minutes from the time of administration of the study mixture. Secondary endpoints are the proportion of patients ingesting 5 ml/kg and 10 ml/kg at 30 and 60 minutes after drug administration and the incidence of adverse events. Longer term outcomes will include the proportion of patients requiring hospital admission and length of emergency department stay.

Discussion

This trial will define the role of 2% lidocaine in the treatment of painful infectious mouth conditions

Trial registration

The trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry - ACTRN12609000566235.

Efficacy of palifermin (keratinocyte growth factor-1) in the amelioration of oral mucositis

PURPOSE

Oral mucositis is a significant toxicity of cytotoxic chemo- and radiation-therapy used to treat cancer. Palifermin is the first pharmaceutical/biological agent approved for the intervention of oral mucositis. The major objective of this review is to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of palifermin.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using an appropriate keyword search in MEDLINE and PubMed databases.

RESULTS

Of 100 full papers and 4 abstracts identified, 12 papers and 3 abstracts were appropriate for analysis. Level 2 evidence supporting palifermin use in patients with hematologic malignancies being treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is clear. Level 2 evidence also exists for the use of palifermin in the prevention of oral mucositis in patients with solid tumors (colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer), but is incomplete. Level >/= 3 data support the use of palifermin in allogeneic HSCT recipients and cycled chemotherapy. A single health economic study concluded that palifermin is essentially cost neutral in the autologous HSCT population.

CONCLUSION

Data supporting the use of palifermin in autologous HSCT recipients with hematologic malignancies is clear. Some data exist demonstrating its efficacy in other oncologic indications. Additional studies are needed to broaden the potential applications of palifermin and to ascertain its economic, but not symptomatic, effectiveness.

Emerging drugs for chemotherapy-induced mucositis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced mucositis is an increasingly recognized problem in cancer management, preventing full doses of treatment being given, compromising cure rates and reducing quality of life. Symptoms include mouth pain and ulceration, esophagitis, abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea. It is associated with increased infections and occasional mortality, and its palliation is very expensive. The pathobiology of mucositis is complex, and agents that target mechanisms to prevent mucositis or accelerate healing are in high demand.

OBJECTIVES

To review existing and potential treatments for chemotherapy-induced mucositis in the context of current knowledge of pathobiology.

METHODS

We searched for mucositis of any region of the gastrointestinal tract using Medline, the Pharmaprojects database and listed patents.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

There are many agents in varying stages of development for chemotherapy-induced mucositis. The field is complicated by the question of whether treatments should be developed as drugs or as medical foods, and whether the burden of proof of efficacy and safety should be different.