Search

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.

Background: Oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). The safety and tolerability of AG013, an oral rinse containing recombinant Lactococcus lactis secreting mucosal protectant human trefoil factor 1 (hTFF1), was evaluated in a phase 1b study in LAHNC subjects who received induction with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, with or without docetaxel. Preliminary efficacy data were also obtained., Methods: A total of 25 of 52 LAHNC subjects who were followed during induction cycle 1 developed ulcerative oral mucositis (UOM; World Health Organization grade > 2) and were randomized to AG013:placebo (5:2 ratio) for cycle 2. Dosing schedules of 1, 3, or 6 times daily were evaluated (2 × 10(11) , 6 × 10(11) , and 1.2 × 10(12) colony forming units per day, respectively). OM was evaluated daily from cycle 2, day 1 through 14, using World Health Organization criteria. Pharmacokinetic assessment was also conducted., Results: AG013 bacteria were not detected in blood. Oral live AG013 bacterial and hTFF1 levels in saliva and oral mucosa were equivalent among treatment groups. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea, oral pain, fatigue, diarrhea, and mucosal inflammation. Only 12% (3 of 25 adverse events), mainly nausea, were attributed to the investigational medicinal product: AG013 or placebo. Efficacy analysis showed a 35% reduction in percentage of days with UOM in AG013-subjects versus placebo. All placebo subjects experienced ≥ 2 days of UOM, whereas 29% of AG013 subjects had UOM for 0 or 1 day. AG013 use resulted in fewer unscheduled office and emergency room visits. No differences were noted in mouth and throat soreness, opioid use, or gastrostomy tube placement., Conclusions: AG013 was safe and well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy data support further study., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Background: We evaluated the efficacy of topically applied human recombinant epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) for the treatment of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy (RT), with or without chemotherapy, in patients with head and neck cancer., Methods: Patients receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy, definitive RT, or postoperative RT to the oral cavity or oropharynx were recruited from 6 institutions and enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. Patients were assigned to a placebo group or to 1 of 3 EGF-treatment groups (10, 50, or 100 microg/mL doses, delivered in a spray, twice daily). The grade of mucositis was evaluated using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring criteria. Responders to EGF were defined as having an RTOG grade of 2 or lower at the fourth- or fifth-week examinations during RT, but an enduring RTOG grade 2 for 2 weeks was an exception., Results: Of the 113 patients included in the study, 28 received placebo and 29 received EGF at 10 microg/mL, 29 at 50 microg/mL, and 27 at 100 microg/mL. EGF significantly reduced the incidence of severe oral mucositis at the primary endpoint (a 64% response was observed with 50 microg/mL EGF vs a 37% response in the control group; P = .0246)., Conclusions: The EGF oral spray may have potential benefit for oral mucositis in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer. Phase 3 studies are ongoing to confirm these results.

Background: The risk, severity, and patient-reported outcomes of radiation-induced mucositis among head and neck cancer patients were prospectively estimated., Methods: A validated, patient-reported questionnaire (OMDQ), the FACT quality of life (QOL), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) fatigue scales were used to measure mucositis (reported as mouth and throat soreness), daily functioning, and use of analgesics. Patients were studied before radiotherapy (RT), daily during RT, and for 4 weeks after RT., Results: Contrary to previous reports, the risk of mucositis was virtually identical in the 126 patients with oral cavity or oropharynx tumors (99% overall; 85% grade 3-4) compared with 65 patients with tumors of the larynx or hypopharynx (98% overall; 77% grade 3-4). The mean QOL score decreased significantly during RT, from 85.1 at baseline to 69.0 at Week 6, corresponding with the peak of mucositis severity. The mean functional status score decreased by 33% from 18.3 at baseline to 12.3 at Week 6. The impact of mucositis on QOL was proportional to its severity, although even a score of 1 or 2 (mild or moderate) was associated with a significant reduction in QOL (from 93.6 at baseline to 74.7 at Week 6). Despite increases in analgesic use from 34% at baseline to 80% at Week 6, mean mucositis scores exceeded 2.5 at Week 6., Conclusions: Mucositis occurs among virtually all patients who are undergoing radiation treatment of head and neck cancers. The detrimental effects on QOL and functional status are significant, and opioid analgesia provides inadequate relief. Preventive rather than symptom palliation measures are needed.

Background: Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication of mucotoxic cancer therapy, causing significant oral pain, increased infection risk, and impaired functioning. The efficacy and safety of Saforis (glutamine) powder in UpTec for oral suspension was evaluated for the prevention and treatment of OM., Methods: Three hundred twenty-six patients developing World Health Organization (WHO) grade >or=2 OM during a chemotherapy screening cycle were randomized to Saforis (n = 163) or placebo (n = 163) 3 times/day during their next chemotherapy cycle (Treatment Cycle 1). Patients were crossed over to the alternate treatment during Treatment Cycle 2. As prespecified in the statistical plan, because of a carryover effect in Treatment Cycle 2 the primary efficacy analysis was based on Treatment Cycle 1 only., Results: Compared with placebo, Saforis significantly reduced the incidence of clinically significant WHO grade >or=2 OM (38.7% vs. 49.7%; P = .026) and severe WHO grade >or=3 OM (1.2% vs. 6.7%; P = .005) in Treatment Cycle 1. Saforis also significantly reduced the worst Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale ulceration score in Treatment Cycle 1 compared with placebo (mean, 0.23 +/- 0.39 vs. 0.32 +/- 0.45; P = .013). Patients receiving Saforis in Treatment Cycle 1 had a lower-than-expected OM incidence when crossed over to placebo in Treatment Cycle 2, indicating a significant carryover effect (P = .027). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups., Conclusions: Saforis is safe and effective for preventing and treating OM in patients receiving mucotoxic cancer chemotherapy.

Background: No single oral mucositis (OM) assessment scale is universally accepted; the most commonly used scales are deficient because they combine subjective and objective measures and do not capture the patient's perspective. Because pain is the hallmark symptom of OM, the authors sought to determine whether a simple measure of patient-reported pain was correlated with objective, physician-assessed measures of OM. The findings of the current study may provide a clinical context for understanding the relation between objective indicators and patients' perceptions of OM., Methods: Three hundred twenty-three patients receiving stomatotoxic chemotherapy and randomized to receive either iseganan or placebo for treatment of OM underwent periodic objective and subjective evaluations of OM. Objective measures included clinician scoring of stomatitis and dysphagia using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria scales. A subjective measure was obtained by having patients complete a questionnaire (with questions based on an 11-point numeric scale) regarding oral pain., Results: More than 90% of scheduled oral assessments were obtained. Mouth pain scores were closely related to stomatitis and dysphagia; peak mouth pain coincided with peak stomatitis and dysphagia. Analgesic use increased by 0.7 days for each unit rise on the pain scale. Patients receiving iseganan had a significantly lower level of peak mouth pain than did patients receiving placebo (P=0.041)., Conclusions: A separate measurement of patient-reported pain was useful for capturing the patient's perspective on OM and was correlated with the physician's objective assessment. These findings support the use of a simple, patient-reported rating of mouth pain as a clinically relevant and responsive endpoint in clinical trials. This rating system also may provide a straightforward method of following OM in clinical practice., (Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Oral mucositis is the dose-limiting toxicity for patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimens for tumors of the head and neck area. Currently, the management of established mucositis includes the use of topical anesthetics and systemic analgesics. Based on the clinical evidence of pain alleviation by topical morphine in patients with some inflammatory and painful conditions, a clinical study was undertaken to determine this effect on mucositis-associated pain., Methods: Twenty-six patients with head and neck malignancies treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy for head and neck carcinoma who had severe painful mucositis (World Health Organization Grade 2 or higher) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to morphine mouthwash (MO; 14 patients) or magic mouthwash (MG), a mixture of equal parts of lidocaine, diphenhydramine, and magnesium aluminum hydroxide (12 patients)., Results: The duration of severe pain was 3.5 days less in the MO group compared with the MG group (P = 0.032). The intensity of oral pain was also significantly lower in the MO group compared with the MG group (P = 0.038). No patient in the MO group required third-step opiates for alleviation of the mouth pain. There was a significant difference in duration of severe functional impairment (P = 0.017). Five patients in the MG group complained of local side effects and only one in the MO group (P = 0.007)., Conclusions: For patients with head and neck carcinomas receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, MO is a simple and effective treatment to decrease the severity and duration of pain and the duration of functional impairment., (Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Stomatitis is a common consequence of chemotherapy and a condition for which there is little effective treatment. Although the management of patients with other chemotherapy-related toxicities has improved in recent years, the incidence of stomatitis is increasing because of more intensive treatment and is often a dose limiting factor in chemotherapy. The authors assessed the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy, TRAUMEEL S(R), in the management of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation., Methods: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted in 32 patients ages 3-25 years who had undergone allogeneic (16 patients) or autologous (16 patients) stem cell transplantation. Of the 30 evaluable patients, 15 were assigned placebo, and 15 were assigned TRAUMEEL S both as a mouth rinse, administered five times daily from 2 days after transplantation for a minimum of 14 days, or until at least 2 days after all signs of stomatitis were absent. Stomatitis scores were evaluated according to the World Health Organization grading system for mucositis., Results: A total of five patients (33%) in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group did not develop stomatitis compared with only one patient (7%) in the placebo group. Stomatitis worsened in only 7 patients (47%) in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group compared with 14 patients (93%) in the placebo group. The mean area under the curve stomatitis scores were 10.4 in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group and 24.3 in the placebo group. This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: This study indicates that TRAUMEEL S may reduce significantly the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation., (Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Mouth sores and/or difficulty swallowing are common and painful consequences of cytotoxic chemotherapy for cancer. In previous studies oral glutamine was found to protect animals from the effects of whole abdominal radiation and methotrexate-induced enteritis. Glutamine also was found to reduce oral mucositis in a nonrandomized pilot study in humans. Therefore, the authors attempted to determine the efficacy of oral glutamine in a randomized, double blind, crossover trial in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy., Methods: Twenty-four patients (16 children and 8 adults) received glutamine or placebo (glycine) suspension (2 g amino acid/M2/dose twice daily) to swish and swallow on days of chemotherapy administration and for at least 14 additional days. Patients completed a calendar indicating days of mouth pain associated with each chemotherapy course and the effect of mouth pain on oral intake., Results: Paired data indicated significant amelioration of stomatitis associated with glutamine administration after chemotherapy. The duration of mouth pain was 4.5 days less in chemotherapy courses in which glutamine supplementation was compared with placebo (Wilcoxon's signed rank test, P=0.0005). The severity of oral pain also was reduced significantly when glutamine was provided with chemotherapy (the amount of days mucositis restricted oral intake to soft foods [> or =Grade 2; Modified Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group grading system] was 4 days less with glutamine compared with placebo; Wilcoxon's signed rank test, P=0.002)., Conclusions: Low dose oral glutamine supplementation during and after chemotherapy significantly reduced both the duration and severity of chemotherapy-associated stomatitis. Oral glutamine appears to be a simple and useful measure to increase the comfort of many patients at high risk of developing mouth sores as a consequence of intensive cancer chemotherapy.

Background: The objective of this study was to determine whether a nonabsorbable antibiotic lozenge could alleviate radiation-induced oral mucositis., Methods: Patients scheduled to receive radiation therapy to more than one-third of the oral cavity mucosa were selected for the study. After stratification, patients were randomized to receive either a nonabsorbable antibiotic lozenge or a placebo. Both groups were then evaluated for mucositis by health care providers and self-report instruments., Results: Fifty-four patients were randomized to receive the antibiotic lozenge and 58 to receive the placebo. There were no substantial differences or trends in mucositis scores between the two study arms as measured by the health care providers. However, the mean patient-reported mucositis score and the duration of patient-reported Grade 3-4 mucositis were both lower in the patients randomized to the antibiotic lozenge arm (P = 0.02 and 0.007, respectively)., Conclusions: This prospective, controlled trial provides evidence to suggest that a nonabsorbable antibiotic lozenge can decrease patient-reported radiation-induced oral mucositis to a modest degree. Nonetheless, this evidence does not appear to be compelling enough to recommend this treatment as part of standard practice.

The technology for patient intravenous self-administration of morphine has been successfully implemented in postoperative and other clinical settings and can be used with terminal patients who experience pain. The question of whether patients who use such instrumentation will be vulnerable to over-medication or development of addiction has not been addressed. This report reviews two competing theories that bear upon this question and tests their predictions about self-administration of morphine for pain relief using data obtained from patients in a bone marrow transplant unit. The first, Opponent Process Theory, predicts escalating drug use and the development of addictive behavior in patients who self-administer morphine. The second, Control Theory, predicts that patients will self-regulate pain effectively by administering morphine without developing problems of medication abuse or addiction. Patients self-administering morphine for 2 weeks were compared to controls who received the drug via routine staff-controlled continuous infusion procedures. Self-administering patients used significantly less morphine than controls and still achieved the same amount of pain control; moreover, they terminated drug use sooner than controls. The predictions based upon Opponent Process Theory were not supported in these marrow transplant patients, but Control Theory accounted well for the outcomes. These results support the assumption that self-administration of opioids in a medical setting does not put patients at risk for over-medication or addiction.