Dataset Information

Effect of bupivacaine lozenges on oral mucositis pain: a randomized controlled multicenter phase II study.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:A nonblinded parallel-group randomized controlled study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of repeated administration of a bupivacaine lozenge (25 mg) as pain management for oral mucositis pain in head and neck cancer patients as add-on to standard systemic pain management. Objective:The primary end point was the difference between the intervention group (Lozenge group) and the Control group in daily mean pain scores in the oral cavity or pharynx (whichever was higher). Method:Fifty patients from 2 hospitals in Denmark were randomized 1:1 to 7 days of treatment with bupivacaine lozenges (taken up to every 2 hours) plus standard pain treatment minus topical lidocaine (Lozenge group) or standard pain treatment including topical lidocaine (Control group). The efficacy analysis included 38 patients, as 12 patients were excluded because of changes in study design and missing data. Results:Mean pain in the oral cavity or pharynx (whichever was higher) was significantly lower 60 minutes after taking lozenges (35 mm [n = 22]) than for the Control group (51 mm [n = 16]) (difference between groups -16 mm, 95% confidence interval: -26 to -6, P = 0.0032). Pain in the oral cavity was also significantly lower in the Lozenge group (18 mm) vs the Control group (36 mm, P = 0.0002). Pharyngeal mucositis pain did not differ significantly (37 mm [Lozenge group] vs 48 mm [Control group], P = 0.0630). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion:These results show that the bupivacaine lozenge as an add-on to standard pain treatment had a clinically significant pain-relieving effect in patients with oral mucositis. ClinicalTrialsgov:NCT02252926.

SUBMITTER: Mogensen S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5777682 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of bupivacaine lozenges on oral mucositis pain: a randomized controlled multicenter phase II study.

Mogensen Stine S Treldal Charlotte C Kristensen Claus A CA Bentzen Jens J Lawson-Smith Louise L Petersen Janne J Andersen Ove O

Pain reports 20170823 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>A nonblinded parallel-group randomized controlled study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of repeated administration of a bupivacaine lozenge (25 mg) as pain management for oral mucositis pain in head and neck cancer patients as add-on to standard systemic pain management.<h4>Objective</h4>The primary end point was the difference between the intervention group (Lozenge group) and the Control group in daily mean pain scores in the oral cavity or pharynx (whichever wa ...[more]

PMID: 29392234

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent preclinical and phase I studies have reported that rebamipide decreased the severity of chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in patients with oral cancer. This placebo-controlled randomized phase II study assessed the clinical benefit of rebamipide in reducing the incidence of severe chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).Patients aged 20-75 years with HNC who were scheduled to receive chemoradiotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive rebamipide 2% liquid, rebamipide 4% liquid, or placebo. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade ? 3 oral mucositis determined by clinical examination and assessed by central review according to the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoints were the time to onset of grade ? 3 oral mucositis and the incidence of functional impairment (grade ? 3) based on the evaluation by the Oral Mucositis Evaluation Committee.From April 2014 to August 2015, 97 patients with HNC were enrolled, of whom 94 received treatment. The incidence of grade ? 3 oral mucositis was 29% and 25% in the rebamipide 2% and 4% groups, respectively, compared with 39% in the placebo group. The proportion of patients who did not develop grade ? 3 oral mucositis by day 50 of treatment was 57.9% in the placebo group, whereas the proportion was 68.0% in the rebamipide 2% group and 71.3% in the rebamipide 4% group. The incidences of adverse events potentially related to the study drug were 16%, 26%, and 13% in the placebo, rebamipide 2%, and rebamipide 4% groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in treatment compliance among the groups.The present phase II study suggests that mouth washing with rebamipide may be effective and safe for patients with HNC receiving chemoradiotherapy, and 4% liquid is the optimal dose of rebamipide.ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT02085460 (the date of trial registration: March 11, 2014).

Project description:BackgroundIn women undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine, transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block with bupivacaine hydrochloride (HCl) may not improve postsurgical analgesia. This lack of benefit could be related to the short duration of action of bupivacaine HCl. A retrospective study reported that TAP block with long-acting liposomal bupivacaine (LB) reduced opioid consumption and improved analgesia following cesarean delivery. Therefore, we performed a prospective multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial examining efficacy and safety of TAP block with LB plus bupivacaine HCl versus bupivacaine HCl alone.MethodsWomen (n = 186) with term pregnancies undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomized (1:1) to TAP block with LB 266 mg plus bupivacaine HCl 50 mg or bupivacaine HCl 50 mg alone. Efficacy was evaluated in a protocol-compliant analysis (PCA) set that was defined a priori. The primary end point was total postsurgical opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalent dosing [MED]) through 72 hours. Pain intensity was measured using a visual analog scale. Adverse events (AEs) after treatment were recorded through day 14.ResultsTotal opioid consumption through 72 hours was reduced with LB plus bupivacaine HCl versus bupivacaine HCl alone (least squares mean [LSM] [standard error (SE)] MED, 15.5 mg [6.67 mg] vs 32.0 mg [6.25 mg]). This corresponded to an LSM treatment difference of -16.5 mg (95% confidence interval [CI], -30.8 to -2.2 mg; P = .012). The area under the curve of imputed pain intensity scores through 72 hours supported noninferiority of LB plus bupivacaine HCl versus bupivacaine HCl alone (LSM [SE], 147.9 [21.13] vs 178.5 [19.78]; LSM treatment difference, -30.6; 95% CI, -75.9 to 14.7), with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 36 (P = .002). In an analysis of all treated patients, including those not meeting criteria for inclusion in the PCA, there was no difference in postsurgical opioid consumption between groups. In the LB plus bupivacaine HCl group, 63.6% of patients experienced an AE after treatment versus 56.2% in the bupivacaine HCl-alone group. Serious AEs after treatment were rare (≈3% in both groups).ConclusionsTAP block using LB plus bupivacaine HCl as part of a multimodal analgesia protocol incorporating intrathecal morphine resulted in reduced opioid consumption after cesarean delivery in the PCA set. Results suggest that with correct TAP block placement and adherence to a multimodal postsurgical analgesic regimen, there is an opioid-reducing benefit of adding LB to bupivacaine TAP blocks after cesarean delivery (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03176459).

Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 vaccines play an important role in reducing disease severity, hospitalization, and death, although they failed to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Therefore, an effective inhibitor of galectin-3 (Gal-3) could be used to treat and prevent the transmission of COVID-19. ProLectin-M (PL-M), a Gal-3 antagonist, was shown to interact with Gal-3 and thereby prevent cellular entry of SARS-CoV-2 in previous studies.AimThe present study aimed to further evaluate the therapeutic effect of PL-M tablets in 34 subjects with COVID-19.MethodsThe efficacy of PL-M was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study in patients with mild to moderately severe COVID-19. Primary endpoints included changes in the absolute RT-PCR Ct values of the nucleocapsid and open reading frame (ORF) genes from baseline to days 3 and 7. The incidence of adverse events, changes in blood biochemistry, inflammatory biomarkers, and levels of antibodies against COVID-19 were also evaluated as part of the safety evaluation.ResultsPL-M treatment significantly (p = 0.001) increased RT-PCR cycle counts for N and ORF genes on days 3 (Ct values 32.09 ± 2.39 and 30.69 ± 3.38, respectively) and 7 (Ct values 34.91 ± 0.39 and 34.85 ± 0.61, respectively) compared to a placebo treatment. On day 3, 14 subjects in the PL-M group had cycle counts for the N gene above the cut-off value of 29 (target cycle count 29), whereas on day 7, all subjects had cycle counts above the cut-off value. Ct values in placebo subjects were consistently less than 29, and no placebo subjects were RT-PCR-negative until day 7. Most of the symptoms disappeared completely after receiving PL-M treatment for 7 days in more patients compared to the placebo group.ConclusionPL-M is safe and effective for clinical use in reducing viral loads and promoting rapid viral clearance in COVID-19 patients by inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells through the inhibition of Gal-3.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The incidence of oral mucositis (any grade) after everolimus treatment is 58% in the general population and 81% in Asian patients. This study hypothesized that professional oral care (POC) before everolimus treatment could reduce the incidence of everolimus-induced oral mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study evaluated the efficacy of POC in preventing everolimus-induced mucositis. Patients were randomized into POC and control groups (1:1 ratio) and received everolimus with exemestane. Patients in the POC group underwent teeth surface cleaning, scaling, and tongue cleaning before everolimus initiation and continued to receive weekly POC throughout the 8-week treatment period. Patients in the control group brushed their own teeth and gargled with 0.9% sodium chloride solution or water. The primary endpoint was the incidence of all grades of oral mucositis. We targeted acquisition of 200 patients with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% and 80% power to detect 25% risk reduction. RESULTS:Between March 2015 and December 2017, we enrolled 175 women from 31 institutions, of which five did not receive the protocol treatment and were excluded. Over the 8?weeks, the incidence of grade 1 oral mucositis was significantly different between the POC group (76.5%, 62 of 82 patients) and control group (89.7%, 78 of 87 patients; p = .034). The incidence of grade 2 (severe) oral mucositis was also significantly different between the POC group (34.6%, 28 of 82 patients) and control group (54%, 47 of 87 patients; p = .015). As a result of oral mucositis, 18 (22.0%) patients in the POC group and 28 (32.2%) in the control group had to undergo everolimus dose reduction. CONCLUSION:POC reduced the incidence and severity of oral mucositis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane. This might be considered as a treatment option of oral care for patients undergoing this treatment. Clinical trial identification number: NCT02069093. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The Oral Care-BC trial that prophylactically used professional oral care (POC), available worldwide, did not show a greater than 25% difference in mucositis. The 12% difference in grade 1 or higher mucositis and especially the ?20% difference in grade 2 mucositis are likely clinically meaningful to patients. POC before treatment should be considered as a treatment option of oral care for postmenopausal patients who are receiving everolimus and exemestane for treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and metastatic breast cancer. However, POC was not adequate for prophylactic oral mucositis in these patients, and dexamethasone mouthwash prophylaxis is standard treatment before everolimus.

Project description:The combination of different laxatives at reduced volumes may benefit patients by enhancing efficacy for bowel cleansing and increasing tolerability. However, evidence regarding combined preparations is scarce. This study evaluated whether the combined preparations are associated with enhanced efficacy and tolerability. This randomized phase II study had a single-blind, parallel-arm design. Between December 2013 and September 2014, consecutive patients aged between 20 and 65 years and who required diagnostic colonoscopies were considered for inclusion. Patients were randomly allocated into 4 arms: sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (PMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid in a day-prior (PMC-PEG-DP), PMC and oral sodium phosphate (NaP) in a day-prior (PMC-NaP-DP), PMC and PEG with ascorbic acid in a split-dose (PMC-PEG-SD), and PMC and oral NaP in a split-dose (PMC-NaP-SD). Primary endpoint was the Aronchick scale, and Ottawa scale results by colon segment, patients' adverse gastrointestinal symptoms, and willingness to reuse the same agents were also recorded. Successful bowel preparation was defined as an "excellent" or "good" score on the Aronchick scale. A total of 236 patients were randomized and 229 patients received the planned colonoscopy. The rates of successful bowel preparation in the PMC-PEG-DP, PMC-NaP-DP, PMC-PEG-SD, and PMC-NaP-SD were 82.5%, 64.4%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Excluding the failed PMC-NaP-DP group, all groups showed satisfactory rates of successful bowel preparation, and the mean Ottawa scores were significantly better in the PMC-PEG-SD and PMC-NaP-SD groups than in the PMC-PEG-DP group (P?<?0.0001). The PMC-PEG-DP, PMC-NaP-DP, PMC-PEG-SD, and PMC-NaP-SD groups were similar in terms of rates of adverse gastrointestinal symptoms reported on a 5-point scale (P?=?0.40) and willingness to reuse the same combined preparations (P?=?0.55). PMC-PEG in a day-prior or split-dose and PMC-NaP in a split-dose were efficient and tolerable bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

Dataset Information

Effect of bupivacaine lozenges on oral mucositis pain: a randomized controlled multicenter phase II study.

Publications

Effect of bupivacaine lozenges on oral mucositis pain: a randomized controlled multicenter phase II study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets