Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Background Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral and gastrointestinal side effects, including oral candidiasis, remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Search strategy Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010, 1 June 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1 June 2010) and LILACS via Virtual Health Library (1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists fromrelevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral candidiasis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. The outcomes were eradication of oral candidiasis, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life. Data collection and analysis Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Trial authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated using fixed-effect models. Main results Ten trials involving 940 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Drugs absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were beneficial in eradication of oral candidiasis compared with drugs not absorbed from the GI tract (three trials: RR = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.52), however there was significant heterogeneity. A drug absorbed from the GI tract, ketoconazole, wasmore beneficial than placebo in eradicating oral candidiasis (one trial: RR = 3.61, 95% CI 1.47 to 8.88). Clotrimazole, at a higher dose of 50 mg was more effective than a lower 10 mg dose in eradicating oral candidiasis, when assessed mycologically (one trial: RR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.60). Only one of the ten trials was assessed as at low risk of bias. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to claimor refute a benefit for any antifungal agent in treating candidiasis. Further well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of old and new interventions for treating oral candidiasis are needed. Clinicians need to make a decision on whether to prevent or treat oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 7. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.</p

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Background: Treatment of cancer with chemotherapy is becoming 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. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of oral (and topical) prophylactic agents for oral mucositis and oral candidiasis in patients with cancer (excluding head and neck cancer), compared with placebo or no treatment. Search Strategy: Computerised MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialist Register search up to July 1999. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Selection Criteria: Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random or quasi-random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy (excluding head and neck cancer); interventions - prophylactic agents prescribed to reduce oral conditions arising from cancer or its treatment; outcomes - mucositis and oral candidiasis. Data Collection and Analysis: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (JC &amp; HW). Specialist advice was sought to categorise interventions. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out using the Jadad criteria (Jadad 1998). The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using random effects models where significant heterogeneity was detected (P &lt; 0.1). Main Results: Thirty-eight reports of trials were initially included. Two were duplicate reports and nine were excluded as there was no useable information. Of the 27 useable studies 14 had data for mucositis comprising 945 randomised patients and 15 included data for oral candidiasis with 1164 randomised patients. Of the eight prophylactic agents used for mucositis only one, ice chips, was effective (Relative risk 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77, chi-square for heterogeneity = 0.26 (df = 1), p = 0.61). The NNT to prevent one extra case of mucositis over the baseline incidence using ice chips was 4 (95%CI: 3 to 7). The NNT for when the baseline incidence of mucositis in the population ranges from 50% to 80% are 5 to 4 respectively. There is evidence that antifungal agents which are partially or fully absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract prevent oral candidiasis and that the partially absorbed agents may be more effective than the fully absorbed agents. The RR for partially absorbed agents was 0.13 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.27, chi-square for heterogeneity = 5.3 (df = 3), P = 0. 15). The NNT to prevent one extra case of oral candidiasis over the baseline incidence using partially absorbed drugs was 3 (95% CI: 3 to 5). The NNT for when the baseline incidence of oral candidiasis in the population ranges from 30% to 70% are 4 to 2 respectively. The general reporting of RCT's was poor however the median Jadad score was acceptable and improved further when the authors provided additional information. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the findings for oral candidiasis. Reviewer's Conclusions: There is some evidence that ice chips prevent mucositis. None of the other prophylactic agents included in this review prevented mucositis. There is evidence that prophylactic use of antifungal agents which are absorbed or partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract reduce the clinical signs of oral candidiasis, and the partially absorbed drugs may be more effective. Future trials in this area should address the link between oral and general health including outcomes relevant to the patient. Collaboration between medical and dental teams is indicated.</p

Development of a root caries prediction model in a population of dental attenders

Acknowledgement This study was conducted as part of the doctoral thesis of P.A.F. We would like to thank the participating dental practice teams and patients without whose valuable contribution this study could not have taken place. We would like to thank our colleagues in the INTERVAL Trial team Funding INTERVAL was funded by the NIHR HTA programme [project numbers 06/35/05 (Phase I) and 06/35/99 (Phase II)]. No additional funding was obtained to conduct the prediction study presented in this paper. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of NIHR, the NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Developing a core outcome set for periodontal trials

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank all patients and professionals who took part in the Delphi process and face-to-face consensus meeting. We wish to thank Jillian Sutherland, Shirley Bell, Margaret Mooney and Lorna Barnsley for helping to organise the face-to-face consensus meeting. Patient participant recruitment to this study was facilitated by SHARE–the Scottish Health Research Register. SHARE is supported by NHS Research Scotland and the Chief Scientists Office Funding: TL received research funding for the core outcome set development for the prevention and management of periodontal diseases which was provided by the Tattershall fund, Dundee Dental School. This grant provided funds for the e-Delphi software, SHARE services and the face-to-face consensus meeting travel and catering costs. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscriptPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Barriers and facilitators of evidence-based management of patients with bacterial infections among general dental practitioners:a theory-informed interview study

Background: General dental practitioners (GDPs) regularly prescribe antibiotics to manage dental infections although most infections can be treated successfully by local measures. Published guidance to support GDPs to make appropriate prescribing decisions exists but there continues to be wide variation in dental antibiotic prescribing. An interview study was conducted as part of the Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in Dentistry (RAPiD) trial to understand the barriers and facilitators of using local measures instead of prescribing antibiotics to manage bacterial infections. Methods: Thirty semi-structured one-to-one telephone interviews were conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Responses were coded into domains of the TDF and sub-themes. Priority domains (high frequency: ≥50 % interviewees discussed) relevant to behaviour change were identified as targets for future intervention efforts and mapped onto 'intervention functions' of the Behaviour Change Wheel system. Results: Five domains (behavioural regulation, social influences, reinforcement, environmental context and resources, and beliefs about consequences) with seven sub-themes were identified as targets for future intervention. All participants had knowledge about the evidence-based management of bacterial infections, but they reported difficulties in following this due to patient factors and time management. Lack of time was found to significantly influence their decision processes with regard to performing local measures. Beliefs about their capabilities to overcome patient influence, beliefs that performing local measures would impact on subsequent appointment times as well as there being no incentives for performing local measures were also featured. Though no knowledge or basic skills issues were identified, the participants suggested some continuous professional development programmes (e.g. time management, an overview of published guidance) to address some of the barriers. The domain results suggest a number of intervention functions through which future interventions could change GDPs' antibiotic prescribing for bacterial infections: imparting skills through training, providing an example for GDPs to imitate (i.e. modelling) or creating the expectation of a reward (i.e. incentivisation). Conclusions: This is the first theoretically informed study to identify barriers and facilitators of evidence-based management of patients with bacterial infections among GDPs. A pragmatic approach is needed to address the modifiable barriers in future interventions intended to change dentists' inappropriate prescribing behaviour.</p

A randomised controlled trial to explore attitudes to routine scale and polish and compare manual versus ultrasonic scaling in the general dental service in Scotland [ISRCTN99609795]

BACKGROUND: To investigate, within general dental practice, patients' and vocational dental practitioners' (VDP) attitudes towards the benefits and costs of a simple scale and polish and to compare the experience of using manual versus ultrasonic instruments to scale teeth. METHODS: 28 VDPs and 420 patients participated. Patients were randomly allocated to either group. Patients' and VDPs' attitudes towards, and experience of, the scale and polish were elicited by means of self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: The majority of patients (99%) believed a scale and polish was beneficial. VDPs considered ultrasonic treatment to be appropriate on significantly more occasions than they did for manual scale and polish (P < 0.001). Patient discomfort: with ultrasonic scaling 69.2% felt 'a little uncomfortable' or worse compared with 60% of those undergoing manual treatment (P = 0.072). VDPs considered treatment charges were appropriate for 77% of patients. CONCLUSION: Routine scaling and polishing is considered beneficial by both patients and vocational trainees. The majority of patients, regardless of treatment method, experience some degree of discomfort when undergoing a scale and polish. VDPs showed a preference for the ultrasonic treatment method

Core outcomes in periodontal trials:study protocol for core outcome set development

Abstract Background There are a large number of clinical outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of prevention and management strategies of periodontal diseases. This heterogeneity causes difficulties when trying to synthesise data for systematic reviews or clinical guidelines, reducing their impact. Core outcome sets are an agreed, standardised list of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials in specific clinical areas. We aim to develop a core outcome set for effectiveness trials investigating the prevention and management of periodontal disease in primary or secondary care. Methods To identify existing outcomes we screened the Cochrane systematic reviews and their included studies on the prevention and management of periodontal diseases. The core outcome set will be defined by consensus of key stakeholders using an online e-Delphi process and face-to-face meeting. Key stakeholders involved in the development will include: patients, dentists, hygienists/therapists, specialists, clinical researchers and policy-makers. Stakeholders will be asked to prioritise outcomes and feedback will be provided in the next round(s). Stakeholders will have an opportunity to add outcomes found in the Cochrane review screening process at the end of the first round. If consensus is not reached after the second round we will provide feedback prior to a third round. Remaining outcomes will be discussed at a face-to-face meeting and agreement will be measured via defined consensus rules of outcome inclusion. Discussion The inclusive consensus process should provide a core outcome set that is relevant to all key stakeholders. We will actively disseminate our findings to help improve clinical trials, systematic reviews and clinical guidelines with the ultimate aim of improving the prevention and management of periodontal diseases. Trial registration COMET ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true ). Registered on August 2012