Bethanechol chloride 25mg tablets

PurposeThis systematic review aimed to assess the updated literature for the prevention of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by non-surgical cancer therapies.MethodsElectronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that investigated interventions to prevent salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia. Literature search began from the 2010 systematic review publications from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) up to February 2024. Two independent reviewers extracted information regarding study design, study population, cancer treatment modality, interventions, outcome measures, methods, results, risk of bias (RoB version 2), and conclusions for each article.ResultsA total of 51 publications addressing preventive interventions were included. Eight RCTs on tissue-sparing radiation modalities were included showing significant lower prevalence of xerostomia, with unclear effect on salivary gland hypofunction. Three RCTs on preventive acupuncture showed reduced prevalence of xerostomia but not of salivary gland hypofunction. Two RCTs on muscarinic agonist stimulation with bethanechol suggested a preventive effect on saliva flow rate and xerostomia in patients undergoing head and neck radiation or radioactive iodine therapy. Two studies on submandibular gland transfer showed higher salivary flow rates compared to pilocarpine and lower prevalence of xerostomia compared to no active intervention. There is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of vitamin E, amifostine, photobiomodulation, and miscellaneous preventive interventions.ConclusionThis systematic review continues to support the potential of tissue-sparing tecniques and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to preserve salivary gland function in patients with head and neck cancer, with limited evidence on other preventive strategies, including acupuncture and bethanecol. Preventive focus should be on optimized and new approaches developed to further reduce radiation dose to the parotid, the submandibular, and minor salivary glands. As these glands are major contributors to moistening of the oral cavity, limiting the radiation dose to the salivary glands through various modalities has demonstrated reduction in prevalence and severity of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. There remains no evidence on preventive approaches for checkpoint inhibitors and other biologicals due to the lack of RCTs.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundTo study and review the effectiveness of oral care interventions for palliative patients for amelioration of clinical conditions affecting oral cavity.MethodsFollowing PRISMA standard, a systematic evaluation of articles published between 2000 and 2021 was undertaken utilising five databases on interventions studies. This comprehensive review consists of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and specific types of non-randomised studies (NRS) examining oral care interventions for palliative patients. Three independent authors screened search records, identified related studies, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. The key findings of each study were summarised according to the research questions and data that generated during the data extraction procedure.ResultsOut of the 67 identified studies, seven were included in this review (five RCTs and two NRSs) involving head-and-neck cancer, oral cancer, oral mucositis, xerostomia and individuals with malignant disease. Interventions studied were: Ziziphus honey, artificial saliva, CAM2028-Benzydamine, morphine mouthwash, ketamine mouthwash, bethanechol tablets and caphosol with regular oral-care. The durations of interventions in the included studies were largely short-term (six weeks or less). Overall, six studies revealed good results in support of the intervention, with magnitudes of effect ranging from 13.2-10,110.0%. However, just four researches found significant changes, with magnitudes of effect ranging from 50.0-10,110.0%. Although two of the trials have not revealed significant changes in the results, investigations have indicated a reduction in oral conditions in the group with interventions. Only one trial has not indicated an improvement in oral conditions in the groups which received the interventions.DiscussionBy assessing the efficacy of available oral hygiene interventions for palliative patients, this systematic review can help palliative team finds the viable strategies to apply in controlling oral problems among hospice patients. Even though only four of the seven research found a statistically significant difference, most studies found great effectiveness in favour of intervention.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND