Riboflavin laurate nanosuspensions as an intramuscular injection for long-term riboflavin supplementation.

The aim of this study was to prepare riboflavin laurate (RFL) nanosuspensions as an intramuscular injection for long-term riboflavin supplementation. Stable RFL nanosuspensions were obtained by injecting RFL/poloxamer solution in N,N-dimethyl formamide into a trehalose solution. Long soft nanostructures initially appeared and then tube-like rigid nanostructures were obtained after removal of solvents according to the transmission electron microscopic images. The nanosuspensions had narrow size distribution and the mean size was about 300 nm. Molecular self-assembly of RFL may drive the formation of nanostructures. RFL formed a monolayer at the air/water interface and poloxamer 188 could insert into the monolayer. The nanosuspensions were intramuscularly injected into rats to provide long-term riboflavin supplementation for more than 30 days in light of body weight, food intake, and urinary riboflavin. The nanosuspensions were also used to resist the riboflavin deficiency induced by methotrexate chemotherapy. RFL nanosuspensions are a promising nanomedicine for long-term riboflavin supplementation.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.

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: Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 16 February 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 February 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 February 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 16 February 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16 February 2011), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 16 February 2011) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Overall only 8% of these studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Ten interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These ten interventions were: aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), intravenous glutamine, honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste and sucralfate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ten interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to 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 further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.

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: Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Nine interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These nine interventions were: allopurinol, aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, glutamine (intravenous), honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, and polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nine interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to 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 further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Melatonin in diseases of the oral cavity.

BACKGROUND: Melatonin is the principal secretory product of the pineal gland. It has immunomodulatory and antioxidant activities, stimulates the proliferation of collagen and osseous tissue and acts as a protector against cellular degeneration associated with aging and toxin exposure. Arising out of its antioxidant actions, melatonin protects against inflammatory processes and cellular damage caused by the toxic derivates of oxygen. As a result of these actions, melatonin may be useful as a co-adjuvant in the treatment of certain conditions of the oral cavity. METHODS: An extensive review of the scientific literature was carried out using PubMed, Science Direct, ISI Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane base. RESULTS: Melatonin, which is released into the saliva, may have important implications for oral diseases. Melatonin may have beneficial effects in certain oral pathologies including periodontal diseases, herpes viral infections and Candida, local inflammatory rocesses, xerostomia, oral ulcers and oral cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Melatonin may play a role in protecting the oral cavity from tissue damage caused by oxidative stress. The experimental evidence suggests that melatonin may have utility in the treatment of several common diseases of the oral cavity. However, more specific studies are necessary to extend the therapeutic possibilities to other oral diseases.

Reduction of radiochemotherapy-induced early oral mucositis by recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor (palifermin): experimental studies in mice.

PURPOSE: To study the effect of recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor (rHuKGF or palifermin) on oral mucositis induced by radiochemotherapy in a mouse model. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (cisplatin) and/or 5-fluorouracil were given before single dose irradiation, combined with palifermin before or after the treatment, or both. Daily fractionated irradiation for 2 weeks was followed by graded test doses. With additional chemotherapy in Week 1, palifermin was given before radiotherapy and at the end of the first week, or additionally at the end of Week 2. Radiochemotherapy in Week 2 was combined with palifermin at the end of Weeks 1 and 2, Weeks 1, 2, and 3, or additionally before radiotherapy. Ulceration of mouse tongue mucosa was analyzed as the endpoint. RESULTS: The dose associated with ulcer induction in 50% of the mice (ED(50)) for single-dose irradiation was 11.5 +/- 0.7 Gy. Palifermin increased the ED(50) to about 19 Gy in all protocols tested. Similar values were observed when chemotherapy was added before irradiation. With fractionated irradiation, palifermin increased the ED(50) for test irradiation from 5.7 +/- 1.5 Gy to 12-15 Gy, depending on the administration protocol. With chemotherapy in Week 1, two palifermin injections had no significant effect, but a third injection increased the ED(50) to 13 Gy. With chemotherapy in Week 2, all palifermin protocols resulted in ED(50) values of 13-14 Gy. CONCLUSION: A marked increase in oral mucosal radiation tolerance by palifermin was found, which was preserved in combinations with chemotherapy using cisplatin and/or 5-fluorouracil.