Rich66
11-21-2009, 03:18 PM
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27Cochrane%20 Database%20Syst%20Rev.%27%29;) 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD000978.
Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.
Worthington HV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Worthington%20HV%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstract), Clarkson JE (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Clarkson%20JE%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstract), Eden OB (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Eden%20OB%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstract).
School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, MANDEC, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH. helen.worthington@manchester.ac.uk
Update of:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD000978. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16625538?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract)
BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven studies were eligible. One hundred and eighty-eight were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 89 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 7523 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, Chinese medicine, chlorhexidine, etoposide, folinic acid, glutamine, granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), histamine gel, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, pilocarpine, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline anticholinergic, prostaglandin, sucralfate, systemic antibiotic clarithromycin, traumeel, zinc sulphate. Of the 33 interventions included in trials, 12 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis.
Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were:
amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing mild and moderate mucositis RRs = 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); Chinese medicine showed a benefit at all three dichotomies of mucositis with RR values of 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.96), 0.44 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.59) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35) for increasing levels of mucositis severity; hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52); and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RRs = 0.64 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.82), 0.38 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.62), and 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.48). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, etoposide bolus, honey, iseganan, oral care, zinc sulphate. The general reporting of RCTs, especially concealment of randomisation, was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.
PMID: 17943748 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.pr.com/press-release/206970
Recent clinical research study on an Ayurvedic formulation Triphala Choornam conducted by Dr Nibin John, Medical Officer, AyurvedaGram Vydehi, proved to be effective in treating oral mucosistis that occurs in the mouth of cancer patients.
angalore, India, February 17, 2010 --(PR.com (http://www.pr.com/))-- Recently, a human clinical research study on an Ayurvedic formulation Triphala Choornam was conducted by Dr Nibin John, Medical Officer, AyurvedaGram Vydehi; supported by Dr. Naveen, Dr. Geetha Narayan, Dr. Durga Prasanna, Vydehi Institute of Oncology and Research center.
The formulation used is an oral rinsing solution with water and honey. It proved to be effective in treating oral mucosistis (inflammation and ulceration that occurs in the mouth of cancer patients undergoing chemo or radiation therapy.
Triphala Choornam - An Ayurvedic formulation that consists of three herbal ingredients i.e. Amalaki, Abhya and Vibhithaki. It is prepared by powdering and mixing equal quantities of the above dried herbs.
Method of usage
5gm (01 Tsp.) of Triphala fine powder was mixed in 200ml of water and boiled. The decoction was cooled to room temperature and one teaspoon of honey was mixed with it. The patients were encouraged to rinse vigorously for at least 30 seconds and retain the decoction in the mouth for 3-5 minutes before spitting/swallowing.
Conclusion
The study was carried out in eight weeks on 10 patients. Of these 10 patients, 3 patients were irregular in rinsing. The patients who were on regular oral rinse with Triphala did not produce mucositis above grade two until the end of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This has helped them continue radiotherapy and chemotherapy sessions without taking any treatment breaks.
Ayurvedic therapeutic action of ingredients
1. Amalaki
English name : Goose berry
Botanical name : Emblica officinalis
Part used: Dried fruit (without seed)
Ayurvedic reference
Rasam : Pancha Rasam (lavana varjitham)
Viryam: Shitham
Vipakam : Madhuram
Indicated in conditions of peptic ulcers, erysipelas, mucositis, stomatitis, anemia, hemorrhages, intermittent fever, and diabetes mellitus.
(Reference: Bhvaprakasham)
2. Abhaya
Botanical name: Terminalia chebula
Part used: Dried fruit without seed
Ayurvedic reference
Rasam: Pancha Rasam (lavana varjitham)
Viryam: Laghu
Indicated in conditions of wounds, mucositis, diabetes mellitus, chronic constipation and diseases associated with obesity.
(Reference: Bhavaprakasham)
3. Vibhithaki
Botanical name: Terminalia bellarica
Part used: Dried fruit without seed
Ayurvedic reference
Rasam :Kashayam
Viryam:Ushnam
Vipakam:Madhuram
It is indicated in conditions of wounds, microbial and fungal infections, cough, constipation, and oral infections. (Reference: Bhavaprakasham)
### <table style="width: 780px; height: 143px;" class="table_bg" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td class="y2 x20" bgcolor="#e9e6f3">Contact Information</td></tr> <tr><td class="x20 t8 b10 spaced130 page_bg">Ayurvedagram Heritage Wellness Center
Kelly Joshep
91 (80) 27945430
info@ayurvedagram.com
http://www.ayurvedagram.com/
MUgard
http://www.accesspharma.com/product-programs/mugard/
What is MuGard?
MuGard (http://www.mugard.com/) is a viscous, mucoadhesive rinse which provides a protective coating to the oral mucosa. In a comparison of patients undergoing standard care with patients using MuGard, the incidence and severity of mucositis was significantly lower for the MuGard group. MuGard has received marketing allowance in the United States under a 510(k) from the Food and Drug Administration.
Clinical Trials of MuGard
Access has conducted a clinical trial of MuGard, the results of which were compared to historical data from two different sources for patients at risk of developing mucositis and who had received prior standard of care treatment. (Cancer; 1999, 85 (10): 2103-2113, and Cancer; 2000, 89 (11): 2258-2265). In both cases, it was shown mucositis scores, as measured by the oral mucositis assessment scale (OMAS), were lower for patients using MuGard than for similar patients on standard care.
MuGard should be started on the first day of cancer therapy, even before the signs and symptoms of oral mucositis are evident. Using MuGard from the first day of treatment, and every day during treatment, was demonstrated to lessen the impact of oral mucositis on many patients, and eliminate or significantly reduce the occurrence in nearly 50% of all patients.
In two separate comparisons, it was shown that mean oral mucositis scores were lower for patients using MuGard than for similar patients on standard care. One of the most striking features of the comparison is that 43% of patients on MuGard experienced no oral mucositis compared with only 7% in the historical control group.
Click here (http://www.mugard.com/patient-analysis/) for a detailed look at our clinical results.
Is MuGard Right for me?
Oral mucositis is a significant health issue for all cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and chemotherapy, especially head and neck cancer patients, and those who receive highly mucotoxic chemotherapy regimens like 5FU and many others.
In fact, oral mucositis is cited as the most troubling side effect by more than 40% of cancer treatment patients. The incidence and severity of oral mucositis varies depending upon the treatment regimen and modality. However, over 90% of all patients receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck, and up to 40% of those receiving chemotherapy will develop some degree of oral mucositis.
Click here (http://www.mugard.com/how-to-order-mugard-healthcare-professionals/) to order online.
Expert Opin Investig Drugs. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27Expert%20Op in%20Investig%20Drugs.%27%29;) 2010 Apr;19 Suppl 1:S91-100.
Rhodiola algida improves chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in breast cancer patients.
Loo WT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Loo%20WT%22%5BAuthor%5D), Jin LJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Jin%20LJ%22%5BAuthor%5D), Chow LW (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Chow%20LW%22%5BAuthor%5D), Cheung MN (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Cheung%20MN%22%5BAuthor%5D), Wang M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Wang%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D).
UNIMED Medical Institute, Hong Kong.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Oral ulcerative mucositis, a common adverse effect due to mainstream cytotoxic drugs, limits the nutritional intake of cancer patients. Rhodiola algida is widely used in traditional Chinese medicine to stimulate the immune system. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of this herbal extract on healthy human lymphocytes in vitro, the homeostasis of cancer patients and the healing time of oral ulcers. METHOD: The constituents of Rhodiola algida were analyzed by RP-HPLC. Lymphocytes isolated from 462 healthy subjects were treated with 100 ug/ml Rhodiola algida for 48 h. The activity of the cells was measured by cell proliferation reagent and ATP assay. The level of various cytokines and mRNA content of lymphocytes were determined. Rhodiola algida demonstrated no toxicity in animals, which had been orally fed with 1 mg/ml Rhodiola algida for 30 days. 130 breast cancer patients from Huaxi Hospital of Sichuan University were recruited between 2006 and 2007. They received four cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide after modified total mastectomy. These patients were randomly assigned to test and control groups. Rhodiola algida mixture was consumed by the test group for 14 consecutive days after each cycle of chemotherapy. All patients were given 0.2% chlorohexidine mouth wash to be used every day. Complete blood counts, liver and renal function tests together with the number and size of oral ulcerations were analyzed after each cycle. Weight loss, complaints of nausea or vomiting and degree of pain were noted. RESULTS: The optimal concentration of Rhodiola algida favored the proliferation of lymphocytes. The levels of IL-2, IL-4, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and the mRNA content of these cytokines were also enhanced. White blood cell (WBC) levels returned to normal range in both groups 1 week after every cycle of chemotherapy. WBC count increased faster in patients using Rhodiola algida; they presented with smaller and fewer oral ulcers. There were no liver or renal complications observed in any patients. CONCLUSION: Rhodiola algida increases immunity of patients who are receiving chemotherapy post mastectomy and decreases the quantity of oral ulcers. Thus Rhodiola algida has the potential to be used concurrently with chemotherapy to alleviate the occurrence of oral ulcers.
PMID: 20374035 [PubMed - in process]
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.
Worthington HV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Worthington%20HV%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstract), Clarkson JE (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Clarkson%20JE%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstract), Eden OB (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Eden%20OB%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstract).
School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, MANDEC, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH. helen.worthington@manchester.ac.uk
Update of:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD000978. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16625538?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract)
BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven studies were eligible. One hundred and eighty-eight were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 89 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 7523 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, Chinese medicine, chlorhexidine, etoposide, folinic acid, glutamine, granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), histamine gel, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, pilocarpine, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline anticholinergic, prostaglandin, sucralfate, systemic antibiotic clarithromycin, traumeel, zinc sulphate. Of the 33 interventions included in trials, 12 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis.
Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were:
amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing mild and moderate mucositis RRs = 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); Chinese medicine showed a benefit at all three dichotomies of mucositis with RR values of 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.96), 0.44 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.59) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35) for increasing levels of mucositis severity; hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52); and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RRs = 0.64 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.82), 0.38 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.62), and 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.48). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, etoposide bolus, honey, iseganan, oral care, zinc sulphate. The general reporting of RCTs, especially concealment of randomisation, was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.
PMID: 17943748 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.pr.com/press-release/206970
Recent clinical research study on an Ayurvedic formulation Triphala Choornam conducted by Dr Nibin John, Medical Officer, AyurvedaGram Vydehi, proved to be effective in treating oral mucosistis that occurs in the mouth of cancer patients.
angalore, India, February 17, 2010 --(PR.com (http://www.pr.com/))-- Recently, a human clinical research study on an Ayurvedic formulation Triphala Choornam was conducted by Dr Nibin John, Medical Officer, AyurvedaGram Vydehi; supported by Dr. Naveen, Dr. Geetha Narayan, Dr. Durga Prasanna, Vydehi Institute of Oncology and Research center.
The formulation used is an oral rinsing solution with water and honey. It proved to be effective in treating oral mucosistis (inflammation and ulceration that occurs in the mouth of cancer patients undergoing chemo or radiation therapy.
Triphala Choornam - An Ayurvedic formulation that consists of three herbal ingredients i.e. Amalaki, Abhya and Vibhithaki. It is prepared by powdering and mixing equal quantities of the above dried herbs.
Method of usage
5gm (01 Tsp.) of Triphala fine powder was mixed in 200ml of water and boiled. The decoction was cooled to room temperature and one teaspoon of honey was mixed with it. The patients were encouraged to rinse vigorously for at least 30 seconds and retain the decoction in the mouth for 3-5 minutes before spitting/swallowing.
Conclusion
The study was carried out in eight weeks on 10 patients. Of these 10 patients, 3 patients were irregular in rinsing. The patients who were on regular oral rinse with Triphala did not produce mucositis above grade two until the end of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This has helped them continue radiotherapy and chemotherapy sessions without taking any treatment breaks.
Ayurvedic therapeutic action of ingredients
1. Amalaki
English name : Goose berry
Botanical name : Emblica officinalis
Part used: Dried fruit (without seed)
Ayurvedic reference
Rasam : Pancha Rasam (lavana varjitham)
Viryam: Shitham
Vipakam : Madhuram
Indicated in conditions of peptic ulcers, erysipelas, mucositis, stomatitis, anemia, hemorrhages, intermittent fever, and diabetes mellitus.
(Reference: Bhvaprakasham)
2. Abhaya
Botanical name: Terminalia chebula
Part used: Dried fruit without seed
Ayurvedic reference
Rasam: Pancha Rasam (lavana varjitham)
Viryam: Laghu
Indicated in conditions of wounds, mucositis, diabetes mellitus, chronic constipation and diseases associated with obesity.
(Reference: Bhavaprakasham)
3. Vibhithaki
Botanical name: Terminalia bellarica
Part used: Dried fruit without seed
Ayurvedic reference
Rasam :Kashayam
Viryam:Ushnam
Vipakam:Madhuram
It is indicated in conditions of wounds, microbial and fungal infections, cough, constipation, and oral infections. (Reference: Bhavaprakasham)
### <table style="width: 780px; height: 143px;" class="table_bg" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td class="y2 x20" bgcolor="#e9e6f3">Contact Information</td></tr> <tr><td class="x20 t8 b10 spaced130 page_bg">Ayurvedagram Heritage Wellness Center
Kelly Joshep
91 (80) 27945430
info@ayurvedagram.com
http://www.ayurvedagram.com/
MUgard
http://www.accesspharma.com/product-programs/mugard/
What is MuGard?
MuGard (http://www.mugard.com/) is a viscous, mucoadhesive rinse which provides a protective coating to the oral mucosa. In a comparison of patients undergoing standard care with patients using MuGard, the incidence and severity of mucositis was significantly lower for the MuGard group. MuGard has received marketing allowance in the United States under a 510(k) from the Food and Drug Administration.
Clinical Trials of MuGard
Access has conducted a clinical trial of MuGard, the results of which were compared to historical data from two different sources for patients at risk of developing mucositis and who had received prior standard of care treatment. (Cancer; 1999, 85 (10): 2103-2113, and Cancer; 2000, 89 (11): 2258-2265). In both cases, it was shown mucositis scores, as measured by the oral mucositis assessment scale (OMAS), were lower for patients using MuGard than for similar patients on standard care.
MuGard should be started on the first day of cancer therapy, even before the signs and symptoms of oral mucositis are evident. Using MuGard from the first day of treatment, and every day during treatment, was demonstrated to lessen the impact of oral mucositis on many patients, and eliminate or significantly reduce the occurrence in nearly 50% of all patients.
In two separate comparisons, it was shown that mean oral mucositis scores were lower for patients using MuGard than for similar patients on standard care. One of the most striking features of the comparison is that 43% of patients on MuGard experienced no oral mucositis compared with only 7% in the historical control group.
Click here (http://www.mugard.com/patient-analysis/) for a detailed look at our clinical results.
Is MuGard Right for me?
Oral mucositis is a significant health issue for all cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and chemotherapy, especially head and neck cancer patients, and those who receive highly mucotoxic chemotherapy regimens like 5FU and many others.
In fact, oral mucositis is cited as the most troubling side effect by more than 40% of cancer treatment patients. The incidence and severity of oral mucositis varies depending upon the treatment regimen and modality. However, over 90% of all patients receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck, and up to 40% of those receiving chemotherapy will develop some degree of oral mucositis.
Click here (http://www.mugard.com/how-to-order-mugard-healthcare-professionals/) to order online.
Expert Opin Investig Drugs. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27Expert%20Op in%20Investig%20Drugs.%27%29;) 2010 Apr;19 Suppl 1:S91-100.
Rhodiola algida improves chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in breast cancer patients.
Loo WT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Loo%20WT%22%5BAuthor%5D), Jin LJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Jin%20LJ%22%5BAuthor%5D), Chow LW (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Chow%20LW%22%5BAuthor%5D), Cheung MN (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Cheung%20MN%22%5BAuthor%5D), Wang M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Wang%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D).
UNIMED Medical Institute, Hong Kong.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Oral ulcerative mucositis, a common adverse effect due to mainstream cytotoxic drugs, limits the nutritional intake of cancer patients. Rhodiola algida is widely used in traditional Chinese medicine to stimulate the immune system. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of this herbal extract on healthy human lymphocytes in vitro, the homeostasis of cancer patients and the healing time of oral ulcers. METHOD: The constituents of Rhodiola algida were analyzed by RP-HPLC. Lymphocytes isolated from 462 healthy subjects were treated with 100 ug/ml Rhodiola algida for 48 h. The activity of the cells was measured by cell proliferation reagent and ATP assay. The level of various cytokines and mRNA content of lymphocytes were determined. Rhodiola algida demonstrated no toxicity in animals, which had been orally fed with 1 mg/ml Rhodiola algida for 30 days. 130 breast cancer patients from Huaxi Hospital of Sichuan University were recruited between 2006 and 2007. They received four cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide after modified total mastectomy. These patients were randomly assigned to test and control groups. Rhodiola algida mixture was consumed by the test group for 14 consecutive days after each cycle of chemotherapy. All patients were given 0.2% chlorohexidine mouth wash to be used every day. Complete blood counts, liver and renal function tests together with the number and size of oral ulcerations were analyzed after each cycle. Weight loss, complaints of nausea or vomiting and degree of pain were noted. RESULTS: The optimal concentration of Rhodiola algida favored the proliferation of lymphocytes. The levels of IL-2, IL-4, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and the mRNA content of these cytokines were also enhanced. White blood cell (WBC) levels returned to normal range in both groups 1 week after every cycle of chemotherapy. WBC count increased faster in patients using Rhodiola algida; they presented with smaller and fewer oral ulcers. There were no liver or renal complications observed in any patients. CONCLUSION: Rhodiola algida increases immunity of patients who are receiving chemotherapy post mastectomy and decreases the quantity of oral ulcers. Thus Rhodiola algida has the potential to be used concurrently with chemotherapy to alleviate the occurrence of oral ulcers.
PMID: 20374035 [PubMed - in process]
</td></tr></tbody></table>