Sucralfate 1g/5ml oral suspension

BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is considered one of the most common side effects of patients undergoing cancer therapy. OM prevention plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of cancer treatment and the patient's quality of life. Different preventive treatments have been proposed in clinical trials, however with inconclusive results.Materials and methodsA systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database to answer the PICO question: in cancer patients, do specific topical agents compared to standard treatments or placebo reduce the onset and severity of oral mucositis? The risk of bias was assessed, and a network meta-analysis was conducted.ResultsOf 2913 results, 30 randomized clinical trials were considered suitable for inclusion. A total of 2564 patients were analyzed, of which 1284 belonged to the test group and 1280 belonged to the control group. Natural products were the most used, followed mainly by antimicrobial agents, coating agents, and basic oral care measures. Topical sucralfate resulted in the most powerful intervention for the OM prevention (OR = 0.04, 95%C.I. = 0.01-0.25, p-value = 0.001).ConclusionDue to its cytoprotective action, low cost, ease of administration, and safety, sucralfate could become a potential ally to prevent the onset of OM during cancer therapy.

Abstract licence: CC BY

AimsPelvic radiotherapy can induce gastrointestinal injury and symptoms, which can affect quality of life. We assessed interventions for managing these symptoms.Materials and methodsA review of randomised controlled trials published between January 1990 and June 2023 from databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN and grey literature sources was conducted. Meta-analyses were carried out using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model to produce overall treatment differences with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsTwenty-eight studies (2392 participants) of varying methodological quality were included. 4% formalin was superior to sucralfate for improving gastrointestinal symptom score (standardised mean difference [SMD] -1.07, 95% confidence interval -1.48 to -0.65). Argon plasma coagulation (APC) was inferior to sucralfate (SMD 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.59). Counselling positively influenced symptom score (SMD -0.53, 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.29), whereas hyperbaric oxygen therapy showed conflicting results. Sucralfate combined with APC increased endoscopic markers of moderate-severe bleeding versus APC alone (risk ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 4.55). No definite conclusions on pain, incontinence, diarrhoea, tenesmus or quality of life interventions were confirmed.ConclusionsSmall study sizes, methodological quality and heterogeneity limit support of any individual intervention. APC and 4% formalin seem to be promising interventions, with further larger randomised controlled trials now warranted.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background and objectiveErosive esophagitis (EE) is the second most common phenotype of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are considered the mainstay treatment for healing and maintaining remission of EE, a significant proportion of patients, particularly those with advanced grades, fail to respond adequately. This review provides an updated overview of the current pharmacological treatment options for EE.MethodsAn extensive electronic literature search was performed using PubMed database to identify relevant articles. The search included prospective clinical trials, observational trials, case-control studies, systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, and narrative reviews describing pharmacological therapy for adult patients with EE. Articles were limited to English language publications. Search terms encompassed various treatment modalities including PPIs, potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs), histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, prokinetics, rebamipide and alginates.Key content and findingsResearch has shown varying effectiveness across different treatments for EE. While randomized controlled trials found alginates, sucralfate, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists to have limited healing efficacy, PPIs remain the most effective treatment, achieving healing rates of 75-95% after 8 weeks, though symptom resolution reaches about 60-85%. Among PPIs, esomeprazole shows slightly better healing outcomes compared to others. However, PPI effectiveness decreases in advanced EE cases [Los Angeles (LA) grades C/D], with healing rates dropping to 60-70%. More recently, P-CABs have demonstrated promising results, demonstrating healing rates non-inferior to PPIS but superior in patients with advanced EE or PPI-resistent EE. Given that most patients experience relapse upon discontinuation, maintaining PPI or PCAB therapy is crucial for preventing EE recurrence.ConclusionsThe future of EE management lies in a more personalized approach that takes into account disease severity, PPI response, and patient preferences. While PPIs remain the mainstay of treatment, P-CABs represent a promising new therapeutic option, particularly for severe and PPI-resistant cases. The addition of nighttime to bedtime H2RAs or use of double PPI dose may benefit refractory cases. Further studies are needed to directly compare PPIs and P-CABs in different EE grades and evaluate the value of adjunctive therapies.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).Design and settingSystematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.ParticipantsRandomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included.Search methodsThe Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding.ResultsWe included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear.ConclusionsSeveral interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC