| Literature DB >> 30544681 |
Masataka Sunagawa1, Kojiro Yamaguchi2, Mana Tsukada3, Nachi Ebihara4, Hideshi Ikemoto5, Tadashi Hisamitsu6.
Abstract
Stomatitis is occasionally multiple, recurrent, and refractory. Currently, mucositis induced by chemotherapy and radiation therapy in patients with cancer has become a significant clinical problem. Effective treatments have not been established and the treatment of numerous cases remains a challenge for physicians. Traditional Japanese herbal medicines termed Kampo formulae (i.e., Hangeshashinto, Orengedokuto, Inchinkoto, Orento, Byakkokaninjinto, Juzentaihoto, Hochuekkito, and Shosaikoto) are used for treating various types of stomatitis and mucositis. Its use has been based on the Kampo medical theories-empirical rules established over thousands of years. However, recently, clinical and basic research studies investigating these formulae have been conducted to obtain scientific evidence. Clinical studies investigating efficacies of Shosaikoto and Orento for the treatment of cryptogenic stomatitis and acute aphthous stomatitis and those investigating the effects of Hangeshashinto, Orengedokuto, and Juzentaihoto on chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced mucositis have been conducted. The Kampo formulae comprise several crude drugs, whose mechanisms of action are gradually being clarified. Most of these drugs that are used for the treatment of stomatitis possess anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antioxidative properties. In this review, we introduce the clinical applications and summarize the available evidence on the Kampo formulae for the treatment of stomatitis and oral mucositis.Entities:
Keywords: Hangeshashinto; kampo formula; mucositis; stomatitis; traditional Japanese herbal medicine
Year: 2018 PMID: 30544681 PMCID: PMC6313652 DOI: 10.3390/medicines5040130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicines (Basel) ISSN: 2305-6320
Figure 1Kampo formulae frequently used for the treatment of stomatitis [4]. The trends in the use of the Kampo formulae at hospitals and faculties of oral surgery of dental/medical universities in Japan were surveyed. A total of 55 hospitals participated in the survey and rated the frequency of Kampo formulae use via a scale from 0 to 3. This graphic summarizes the results of rating.
The Kampo formulae frequently used for the treatment of stomatitis and their corresponding crude drugs.
| Kampo Formulae | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude Drug/Japanese Name | Hangeshashinto (HST) | Orento (ORT) | Orengedokuto (OGT) | Byakkokaninjinto (BKN) | Shosaikoto (SST) | Inchinkoto (ICT) | Heiisan (HIS) | Juzentaihoto (JTT) | Hochuekkito (HET) | Antioxidant [ | Chief Ingredient | Principal Effects | |
| Keihi | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 120.2 | cinnamaldehyde | antipyresis, perspiration, analgesia | |||||||
| Ogon | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 111.5 | baicalin | anti-inflammation, antipyresis, laxative | |||||||
| Shoma | ◯ | 64.3 | cimigenol | anti-inflammation, antipyresis, analgesia, antiedema | |||||||||
| Shakuyaku | ◯ | ◯ | 55.1 | paeoniflorin | analgesia, spasmolysis, anti-inflammation | ||||||||
| Chinpi | ◯ | ◯ | 17.5 | hesperidin | stomachic, antitussive | ||||||||
| Kanzo | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 11.6 | glycyrrhizin | anti-inflammation, analgesia, detoxification | |||
| Shokyo | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 7.5 | gingerol | stomachic, antinausea | |||||||
| Sojutsu | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 7.4 | atractylodin | anti-inflammation, stomachic, diuresis | |||||||
| Senkyu | ◯ | 6.7 | cnidilide | analeptic, nourishing, anti-inflammation, analgesia | |||||||||
| Taiso | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 5.9 | zizyphus saponin | analeptic, nourishing, stomachic | |||||
| Saiko | ◯ | ◯ | 5.7 | saikosaponin | anti-inflammation, antipyresis | ||||||||
| Ogi | ◯ | ◯ | 4.9 | formononetin | anti-inflammation, analeptic, diuresis, hypotensive | ||||||||
| Jio | ◯ | 3.9 | catalpol | nourishing, diuresis | |||||||||
| Toki | ◯ | ◯ | 3.0 | ligustilide | analeptic, nourishing, anti-inflammation, analgesia | ||||||||
|
| Bukuryo | ◯ | 2.8 | eburicoic acid | antiedema, stomachic | ||||||||
| Ninjin | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 1.5 | ginsenoside | stomachic, nourishing, antinausea | ||||
| Hange | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | 0.3 | homogentisic acid | sedation, antinausea, antitussive | |||||||
| Kankyo | ◯ | ◯ | shogaol | warming, analgesia | |||||||||
| Oren | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | berberine | anti-inflammation, stomachic, antibacterial, spasmolysis | ||||||||
| Obaku | ◯ | berberine | anti-inflammation, stomachic | ||||||||||
| Sanshishi | ◯ | ◯ | geniposide | anti-inflammation, antipyresis, choleresis | |||||||||
| Inchinko | ◯ | capillarisin | anti-inflammation, antipyresis, choleresis | ||||||||||
| Daio | ◯ | sennoside | laxative, blood fluidity improving | ||||||||||
| Koboku | ◯ | magnolol | stomachic, analgesia, spasmolysis | ||||||||||
|
| Sekko | ◯ | calcium sulfate | anti-inflammation, antipyresis, sedation | |||||||||
| Kobei | ◯ | starch | stomachic, nourishing | ||||||||||
| Chimo | ◯ | timosaponin AIII | antipyresis, hypoglycemia | ||||||||||
Regarding the antioxidative effects of these formulae, only herbs that Dragland, et al. [7] assessed are described.
The effectiveness of each Kampo formula according to the pathognomonic symptoms of patients.
| Kampo Formulae | Pathognomonic Symptoms |
|---|---|
| Hangeshashinto (HST) | multiple stomatitis |
| Orento (ORT) | multiple stomatitis |
| Orengedokuto (OGT) | multiple stomatitis |
| Byakkokaninjinto (BKN) | thirstiness, dry mouth |
| Shosaikoto (SST) | bitter in the mouth |
| Inchinkoto (ICT) | multiple stomatitis, dry mouth |
| Heiisan (HIS) | multiple stomatitis |
| Juzentaihoto (JTT) | chronic and repetitive stomatitis, dry mouth |
| Hochuekkito (HET) | chronic and repetitive stomatitis |
Clinical studies reporting the use of the Kampo formulae for the treatment of stomatitis.
| No. | First Author, Year [Reference No.] | Kampo Formula | Study Design | Target Patient | Principal Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ogino, 1992 [ | Shosaikoto (SSK) | case series study | cryptogenic stomatitis (n = 10) | Efficacy rate was 80%. (very effective = 2, effective = 4, slightly effective = 2, no change = 2) |
| 2 | Oka, 2007 [ | Orento (ORT) | RCT | acute aphthous stomatitis (n = 39) > non-treated (n = 6), steroid ointment-treated (n = 6) and ORT-treated (n = 27) groups | The administration of Orento reduced the number of days until the disappearance of pain and the complete cure compared to other groups. |
| 3 | Yuki, 2003 [ | Orengedokuto (OGT) | case-control (retrospective) study | chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in patients with acute leukemia (n = 40) > ORG-treated (n = 15) and gargling (n = 25) groups | Incidence of stomatitis was 27.9% in the ORG-treated group, which was significantly lower compared with 71.6% in those who received a gargle consisting of allopurinol, sodium gualenate, and povidone-iodine ( |
| 4 | Kono, 2010 [ | Hangeshashinto (HST) | case series study | chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis during mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI treatment for metastasis of advanced colorectal cancer (n = 14) | Thirteen patients (92.8%) showed improvements in oral mucositis, with significantly decreased mean CTCAE grades ( |
| 5 | Aoyama, 2014 [ | RCT | gastric cancer chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (COM) (n = 91) > HST-treated (n = 45) and placebo (n = 46) groups | Although HST treatment did not reduce the incidence of ≥grade | |
| 6 | Matsuda, 2015 [ | RCT | infusional fluorinated-pyrimidine-based colorectal cancer chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (n = 93) > HST-treated (n = 46) and placebo (n = 47) groups | Although the incidence of grade ≥2 mucositis was lower for patients treated with HST compared to those treated with placebo, there was no significant difference (48.8 vs. 57.4%; | |
| 7 | Yoshida, 2017 [ | case series study | cancer chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (grade ≥ 2) (n = 50) | Thirty-seven patients (74%) showed improvements in oral mucositis, with significantly decreased mean NRS and CTC-grade ( | |
| 8 | Nishikawa, 2018 [ | RCT | chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (COM) in patients with gastric cancer and colorectal cancer (n = 181) > HST-treated (n = 88) and placebo (n = 93) groups | The incidence of grade ≥2 COM in the HST group was 55.7%, while that in the placebo group was 53.8% ( | |
| 9 | Ohoka, 2018 [ | RCT | sunitinib-induced oral mucositis (OM) in patients with metastatic renal cancer (n = 22) > HST-gargling (n = 12) and non-gargling (n = 10) groups | The gargling with HST significantly improved OM grade and eating status (Global self assessment) ( | |
| 10 | Wada, 2004 [ | Juzentaihoto (JTT) | RCT | radiation (40 Gy >)-induced stomatitis in patients with oral cancer (n = 15) > JTT-treated (n = 8) and non-treated (n = 7) groups | The mean period that patients could not ingest orally was 17.9 ± 7.1 days in the JTT-treated group, while that in the non-treated group was 26.0 ± 11.6 day ( |
RCT: randomized controlled trial.
Figure 2The effects of Hangeshashinto (HST) and the crude drugs on chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced mucositis. HST exerts antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, immunostimulatory, and analgesic effects. Moreover, HST is able to control the symptoms and simultaneously eliminate the underlying causes of the condition. PGE2; prostaglandin E2. COX-2; cyclooxygenase-2.