| Literature DB >> 28396692 |
Gisela de M S Pina1, Erica N Lia2, Andresa A Berretta3, Andresa P Nascimento3, Elina C Torres3, Andrei F M Buszinski3, Tatiana A de Campos2, Eduardo B Coelho4, Vicente de P Martins2.
Abstract
Our hypothesis tested the efficacy and safety of a mucoadhesive oral gel formulation of Brazilian propolis extract compared to miconazole oral gel for the treatment of denture stomatitis due to Candida spp. infection in older adults. Forty patients were randomly allocated in a noninferiority clinical trial into two groups. The control group (MIC) received 20 mg/g miconazole oral gel and the study group (PROP) received mucoadhesive formulation containing standardized extract of 2% (20 mg/g) propolis (EPP-AF®) during 14 days. Patients were examined on days 1, 7, and 14. The Newton's score was used to classify the severity of denture stomatitis. The colony forming unity count (CFU/mL) was quantified and identified (CHROMagar Candida®) before and after the treatment. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. Both treatments reduced Newton's score (P < 0.0001), indicating a clinical improvement of the symptoms of candidiasis with a clinical cure rate of 70%. The microbiological cure with significant reduction in fungal burden on T14 was 70% in the miconazole group and 25% in the EPP-AF group. The EPP-AF appears to be noninferior to miconazole considering the clinical cure rate and could be recommended as an alternative treatment in older patients.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28396692 PMCID: PMC5371226 DOI: 10.1155/2017/8971746
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1CONSORT flowchart.
Baseline characteristics of the study groups, classification of palatine lesions, and initial fungal burden.
| Variable | MIC ( | PROP ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 73 ± 9 | 73 ± 7 | 0,98 |
| Gender (F%) | 80 | 90 | 0,66 |
| RD: time of use (years) | 30 ± 13 | 35 ± 11 | 0,20 |
| Current: RD time of use (years) | 11 ± 9 | 15 ± 15 | 0,23 |
| Frequency of RD hygiene (times/day) | 3 (2-3) | 3 (3-3) | 0,31 |
| Newton's score (T0) | 2 (1-2) | 2 (1-2) | 0,98 |
| Amount of gel (g) | 17 ± 13 | 20 ± 17 | 0,55 |
| Unity count (log CFU/mL) T0 | 3,7 ± 1,6 | 3,3 ± 1,6 | 0,44 |
| Diabetics | 4 | 2 | 0,66 |
Data expressed as mean (median) and SD (range 25 to 75% range).
Figure 2(a) and (b) Clinical evolution measured by Newton's classification ((a) miconazole and (b) EPP-AF). (c) Microbiological evolution measured by colony forming units CFU/mL (c). (a) and (b) Friedman test with Dunn post-test. (c) ANOVA test. The bars represent the median. CI = 95% .
Figure 3(a) Clinical and (b) microbiological outcomes. The bar chart compares the clinical outcome (a) of the two groups by the clinical improvement observed by Newton's classification and microbiological outcome (b) by the reduction of CFU/mL. (a,b) Fischer's exact test.