A randomised trial of topical polaprezinc to prevent oral mucositis in patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ToPaZ study).

PURPOSE: Oral mucositis (OM) is a common complication in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Polaprezinc, an anti-ulcer drug, has been shown to be effective to prevent OM in several studies when administered topically and systemically. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of topical polaprezinc in patients undergoing HSCT. METHODS: This was an open-label randomised clinical trial comparing polaprezinc and sodium bicarbonate mouthwashes for the prevention of severe OM in HSCT patients. Adult patients who received conditioning regimens at moderate to high risk of developing OM were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of severe (WHO grades 3-4) OM. The secondary endpoints included duration of grades 3-4 OM, incidence and duration of grades 2-4 OM, patient-reported pain and functional limitations. RESULTS: In total, 108 patients (55 test arm and 53 control arm) were randomised. There was no difference in the incidence of grades 3 to 4 OM (35% test arm versus 36% control arm). The secondary endpoints were not significantly different. In both arms, patients reported more throat pain compared to mouth pain. CONCLUSIONS: Topical polaprezinc had no effect in the prevention of OM in HSCT patients. Further research is required to evaluate the effects of systemic polaprezinc. The OM assessment tool needs to be reviewed as throat mucositis was a main issue in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12320001188921 (Date Registered: 10th November 2020).

A comparison of hydrophobic polyurethane and polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter: results from a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing a hydrophobic polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) with a standard polyurethane PICC. METHODS: This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between May 2017 and February 2018. Adult participants (n = 111) were assigned to hydrophobic polyurethane PICC with proximal valve (intervention) or a polyurethane PICC with external clamp (standard care). Primary outcome was trial feasibility including PICC failure. Secondary outcomes were central line-associated bloodstream infection, local infection, occlusion, thrombosis, fracture and dislodgement, phlebitis, local or systemic allergic reaction, and PICC dwell time. RESULTS: All feasibility outcomes were achieved, apart from eligibility criteria. In total, 338 patients were screened, 138 were eligible (41%), and of these 111 were randomised (80%). Patients received the allocated PICC in 106 (95%) insertions. No patients withdrew from the study and there was no missing data. PICC failure was 24% (13/55) in the intervention group and 22% (12/55) in the standard care group (p = 0.820). PICC failure per 1000 PICC days was 16.3 in the intervention group and 18.4 in the control group (p = 0.755). The average dwell time was 12 days in the intervention and 8 days in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of an efficacy trial of PICC materials in an adult population, once adjustments were made to include not only in-patients, but also patients being discharged to the Hospital in the Home service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001578493 . Prospectively registered on 16 November 2016. The trial protocol was published a priori (Kleidon et al., Vasc Access 3:15-21, 2017).