| Literature DB >> 24285975 |
Gesa Meyer-Hamme1, Kathrin Beckmann, Janine Radtke, Thomas Efferth, Henry Johannes Greten, Matthias Rostock, Sven Schröder.
Abstract
Oral mucositis is one of the common side effects of chemotherapy treatment with potentially severe implications. Despite several treatment approaches by conventional and complementary western medicine, the therapeutic outcome is often not satisfactory. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) offers empirical herbal formulas for the treatment of oral ulceration which are used in adaptation to chemotherapy-induced mucositis. While standard concepts for TCM treatment do not exist and acceptance by conventional oncologists is still low, we conducted a review to examine the evidence of Chinese herbal treatment in oral mucositis. Eighteen relevant studies on 4 single herbs, 2 combinations of 2 herbs, and 11 multiherbal prescriptions involving 3 or more compounds were included. Corresponding molecular mechanisms were investigated. The knowledge about detailed herbal mechanisms, especially in multi-herbal prescriptions is still limited. The quality of clinical trials needs further improvement. Meta-analysis on the existent database is not possible but molecular findings on Chinese medicinal herbs indicate that further research is still promising for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24285975 PMCID: PMC3830834 DOI: 10.1155/2013/284959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
WHO oral toxicity scale [14, 15].
| Grade 0 | Grade I | Grade II | Grade III | Grade IV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (None) | (Mild) | (Moderate) | (Severe) | (Life-threatening) |
| None | Oral soreness, erythema | Oral erythema, ulcers, solid diet tolerated | Oral ulcers, liquid diet only | Oral alimentation impossible |
Clinical trials for chemotherapy-induced mucositis.
| No. | Author/year | Formula | Drug application | Study design | Ulcer classification | Control group | Random/blinding | Effect/control, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 |
Xu and Han2006 [ |
| Acupoint application | Case study | No | No | No/No | 92% improved/no control |
|
| ||||||||
| 4.2 | Loo et al. |
| Oral administration | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale | Basic treatment | Yes *5/No | Improved (ulcer size and number) |
|
| ||||||||
| 4.3 | Shi and Shan |
| Topical application | Randomized group comparison | Clinical judgement | Topic norfloxacin powder | Yes *5/No | 100%/73.3% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 4.4 | Wang et al. |
| Gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale | Saline gargle | Yes *5/No | 64%/16% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.1a | Ma and Song |
| Oral administr. + gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale | Boxax gargle | Yes *5/No | 80.6%/14.8% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.1b | Zeng |
| Gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | Clinical judgement | Peroxide gargle | Random number table/No | 95.3%/76.7% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.2 | Bao et al. |
| Gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale | Dobell's solution gargle | Yes *5/No | 30%/5% improved for ulcer grading, no effect on healing time |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.3 | Chen et al. |
| Oral administration | Randomized group comparison | Ulcer size | Furacilin gargle oral vit B1 + C metronidazol infusion | Yes *5/No | 93%/73.8% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.4 | Wu Zhu YF et al. |
| Topical ice cube application | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale | Dobell's solution gargle | Yes *5/No | 86.9%/60.9% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.5 | Wang et al. | Sheng Mai San *1 | Intravenous injection | Randomized group comparison | Clinical judgement | Dexamethasone MCP ondansetr. injection | Yes *5/No | 94.5%/71.5% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.6 | Jin et al. |
| Oral administer. + gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale VAS | Saline, gentamycin, tetrahydrofolate gargle/oral oryzanol | Yes *5/No | 93.3%/93.3%/7.8% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.7 | Hou et al. |
| Gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | Clinical judgement | No | Yes *5/No | 96.2%/76.1% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.8/5.9 | Zhu and Zhang |
| Oral administr. | Case study, clinical allocation to group 1 or 2 | Clinical judgement | No | No/No | 83.9 improved/no control |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.10/5.11 | Zhou et al. |
| Oral administration + gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | Ulcer size, quantity | Vit B12, gentamicin | Yes *5/No | 96.7% improved, shorter healing period/86.7% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.12 | Chen and Zheng |
| Oral administr. + gargle solution | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale | Vit B2 | Envelope lottery/No | 78.8%/33.3% improved |
|
| ||||||||
| 5.13 | Sun | Modified | Oral administr. | Randomized group comparison | WHO scale | Vit B2 and Vit C | Yes *5/No | 98%/72% improved |
*1: Ginseng radix, Ophiopogonis radix, Schisandrae chinensis fructus.
*2: Gypsum fibrosum, Rehmanniae viridae radix, Anemarrhenae rhizoma, Ophiopogonis radix, Achyranthis bidentatae radix.
*3: Coptidis rhizoma, Cimicifugae rhizoma, Rehmanniae viridae radix, Moutan cortex, Angelicae sinensis radix, Achyranthis bidentatae radix.
*4: Gypsum fibrosum, Saposhnikoviae radix, Gardeniae fructus, Agastachis herba, Glycyrrhizae radix, Astragali membranacei radix, Atractylodis macrocephalae rhizoma, Dendrobii herba, Lophatheri herba, Hedyotidis herba, Taraxaci herba, Coptidis rhizoma, Ginseng radix, plus added modules.
*5: Randomisation process not described.