-
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of...
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the area of supportive care in cancer and/or PBM clinical application and dosimetry. This article is informational in nature. As with all clinical materials, this paper should be used with a clear understanding that continued research and practice could result in new insights and recommendations. The review reflects the collective opinion and, as such, does not necessarily represent the opinion of any individual author. In no event shall the authors be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the proposed protocols.
OBJECTIVE
This position paper reviews the potential prophylactic and therapeutic effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on side effects of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable body of evidence supporting the efficacy of PBM for preventing oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), CT, or HSCT. This could enhance patients' quality of life, adherence to the prescribed cancer therapy, and treatment outcomes while reducing the cost of cancer care.
METHODS
A literature review on PBM effectiveness and dosimetry considerations for managing certain complications of cancer therapy were conducted. A systematic review was conducted when numerous randomized controlled trials were available. Results were presented and discussed at an international consensus meeting at the World Association of photobiomoduLation Therapy (WALT) meeting in 2018 that included world expert oncologists, radiation oncologists, oral oncologists, and oral medicine professionals, physicists, engineers, and oncology researchers. The potential mechanism of action of PBM and evidence of PBM efficacy through reported outcomes for individual indications were assessed.
RESULTS
There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of PBM for preventing OM in certain cancer patient populations, as recently outlined by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). Building on these, the WALT group outlines evidence and prescribed PBM treatment parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for radiodermatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, trismus, mucosal and bone necrosis, lymphedema, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, oral and dermatologic chronic graft-versus-host disease, voice/speech alterations, peripheral neuropathy, and late fibrosis amongst cancer survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is robust evidence for using PBM to prevent and treat a broad range of complications in cancer care. Specific clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based expert consensus recommendations are provided. These recommendations are aimed at improving the clinical utilization of PBM therapy in supportive cancer care and promoting research in this field. It is anticipated these guidelines will be revised periodically.
PubMed: 36110957
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.927685 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Aug 2022Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease that causes ocular discomfort and visual impairment on a damaged ocular surface. Lifitegrast, a novel T-cell integrin... (Review)
Review
Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease that causes ocular discomfort and visual impairment on a damaged ocular surface. Lifitegrast, a novel T-cell integrin antagonist, was approved in the United States in July 2016 as a 5% (50 mg/mL) ophthalmic solution for DED management. Currently, no meta-analysis and systemic review based on relevant studies have been conducted. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast in patients with DED. We systematically searched Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies evaluating lifitegrast effects on symptomatic DED. Then, inferior corneal staining score, total corneal staining score (TCSS), nasal lissamine staining score (NLSS), total lissamine staining score, ocular discomfort score (ODS), eye discomfort score (visual analog scale (VAS) score), eye dryness score (EDS), ocular surface disease index score (OSDI-S), and tear break-up time (TBUT) were assessed. Clinical global impression and safety profiles were also evaluated. The studies were pooled in a random-effects model. We included five RCTs, one case-control study, and four longitudinal or retrospective studies, comprising 3197 participants. In the meta-analysis, lifitegrast was superior to the placebo because it improved TCSS, NLSS, TBUT, ODS, eye discomfort score, EDS, and OSDI-Sin DED. However, lifitegrast showed higher risks for ocular and non-ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall or at a mild or moderate level. Nonetheless, its incidence of adverse events slightly differed from that in the placebo, especially instillation site discomforts and dysgeusia, thereby considered safe and tolerable. Claims of withdrawal during follow-up caused by TEAEs were extremely rare. Lifitegrast improves DED, although dysgeusia, installation site pain, and irritation may be a concern for some. Overall, most of the adverse events are tolerable. Lifitegrast can alleviate refractory DED and improves patients' quality of life.
PubMed: 36078948
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175014 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2022Upper limb motor impairment is one of the main complications of stroke, affecting quality of life both for the patient and their family. The aim of this systematic...
BACKGROUND
Upper limb motor impairment is one of the main complications of stroke, affecting quality of life both for the patient and their family. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) on upper limb motor recovery after stroke.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated the efficacy or safety of VNS in stroke patients was performed. The primary outcome was upper limb motor recovery. A search of articles published on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EBSCO and LILACS up to December 2021 was performed, and a meta-analysis was developed to calculate the overall effects.
RESULTS
Eight studies evaluating VNS effects on motor function in stroke patients were included, of which 4 used implanted and 4 transcutaneous VNS. It was demonstrated that VNS, together with physical rehabilitation, increased upper limb motor function on average 7.06 points (95%CI 4.96; 9.16) as assessed by the Fugl-Meyer scale. Likewise, this improvement was significantly greater when compared to a control intervention (mean difference 2.48, 95%CI 0.98; 3.98). No deaths or serious adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The most frequent adverse events were dysphonia, dysphagia, nausea, skin redness, dysgeusia and pain related to device implantation.
CONCLUSION
VNS, together with physical rehabilitation, improves upper limb motor function in stroke patients. Additionally, VNS is a safe intervention.
PubMed: 35847207
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.889953 -
Evidence-based Dentistry Jul 2022Background Plaque biofilm that adheres to tooth surfaces and gingiva is the main aetiology of periodontitis. Chlorhexidine (CHX) is considered as a gold standard... (Review)
Review
Background Plaque biofilm that adheres to tooth surfaces and gingiva is the main aetiology of periodontitis. Chlorhexidine (CHX) is considered as a gold standard anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis agent but it has side effects such as permanent staining of teeth and dysgeusia. Tea tree oil (TTO) is an essential oil extracted from the leaves of Melaleuca alternifolia. Many studies have reported that TTO exerts strong antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities.Primary study objective The review aims to answer the question of whether TTO (intervention) is a viable alternative to CHX (comparator) for the management of gingival and periodontal disease (outcomes) in adolescents and adults (population).Methods/design The following search terms were used in PubMed, Scopus, Proquest, Web of Science, EBSCO (dentistry and open access), Cochrane database, Clinical.gov.org and ctri.nic.in to search for relevant articles: patients with periodontal disease; OR periodontitis; OR gingivitis; OR gingival inflammation; AND essential oil; OR tea tree oil; OR Melaleuca alternifolia; AND chlorhexidine; AND reduction in gingival index; OR reduction in plaque index; OR reduction in bleeding from gums. The initial check for the title and abstract screening followed by removal of duplicates in Mendeley Reference Manager (version 1.19.4) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria were performed.Primary outcome measures Parameters such as plaque index (PI), plaque surface score, gingival index (GI), bleeding index or bleeding as measured by % of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP) or bleeding scores, papillary bleeding index (PBI), were the primary outcomes considered.Results TTO is found to be superior to CHX in reducing signs of gingival inflammation; however, CHX is superior to TTO in inhibiting plaque formation, probably due to its increased substantivity.Conclusion TTO may be used as an alternative to CHX for reduction of gingival inflammation in conjunction with efficient plaque control measures.
PubMed: 35821403
DOI: 10.1038/s41432-022-0259-6 -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Apr 2022The persistence of auditory, vestibular, olfactory, and gustatory dysfunction for an extended time after COVID-19 has been documented, which represents an emerging...
OBJECTIVE
The persistence of auditory, vestibular, olfactory, and gustatory dysfunction for an extended time after COVID-19 has been documented, which represents an emerging challenge of which ENT specialists must be aware. This systematic review aims to evaluate the prevalence of persistent audiovestibolar and olfactory/gustatory symptoms in patients with "long-COVID".
METHODS
The literature was systematically reviewed according to PRISMA guidelines; PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar were screened by searching articles on audiovestibular symptoms and olfactory/gustatory dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The keywords used were hearing loss, tinnitus, vertigo, smell disorders, parosmia, anosmia, hyposmia, dysgeusia combined with COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2.
RESULTS
1100 articles were identified. After removal of duplicates (382), 702 articles were excluded, and 16 were included in the systematic review. All articles included identified an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and persistent hearing or chemosensory impairment. The studies were published over a period of 2 years, between 2019 and 2021.
CONCLUSIONS
The likelihood of patients with persistent audiovestibular symptoms related to COVID-19 was different among the articles; however, olfactory and gustatory disturbances were more consistently reported. Studies with longer follow-up are required to fully evaluate the long-term impact of these conditions.
Topics: COVID-19; Hearing Disorders; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; SARS-CoV-2; Taste Disorders; Vertigo; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 35763279
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-suppl.1-42-2022-10 -
Bulletin of the National Research Centre 2022In 2019, a viral and respiratory pathology called COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, and spread to other continents. Its main symptoms include fever, cough, dyspnea,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In 2019, a viral and respiratory pathology called COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, and spread to other continents. Its main symptoms include fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia, anorexia and respiratory distress in the most severe cases, which can lead to death. Furthermore, manifestations in the oral cavity such as ageusia and dysgeusia, as well as lesions in other regions of the oral cavity, can be observed.
MAIN BODY
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically assess the clinical evidence on the use of photobiomodulation (PBMT) and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for the treatment of oral lesions in patients infected with Sars-Cov-2. The literature extracted from electronic databases such as PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Google Scholar was screened for eligibility, and relevant articles were included. The review is limited to manuscripts published in English, Spanish and Portuguese language between December 2019 and October 2021. A total of 5 articles with 11 cases retracting PBMT and aPDT as therapeutic strategies for the regression of oral lesions and painful symptoms. The results show favoring the associated use of PBMT with aPDT ( = 0.004), and the isolated use of PBMT with the result of significant " = 0.005" and good confidence interval (7.18, 39.20) in ulcerative lesions, herpetic, aphthous, erythematous, petechiae and necrotic areas.
CONCLUSIONS
PBMT and aPDT could be effective in the treatment of oral lesions of patients infected with Sars-Cov-2 in a short period of time; however, more long-term randomized clinical trials studies are needed to define the therapeutic strategy.
PubMed: 35601476
DOI: 10.1186/s42269-022-00830-z -
Journal of the American Nutrition... 2023Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disturbance among hospitalized adults. Oral urea is currently recommended in Europe in the treatment of chronic hyponatremia;...
Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disturbance among hospitalized adults. Oral urea is currently recommended in Europe in the treatment of chronic hyponatremia; no published systematic review investigating oral urea for acute hyponatremia among hospitalized adults exists. An oral urea supplement became available in the United States in 2016. This was a systematic review investigating the use of oral urea in the treatment of acute hyponatremia among hospitalized adults. Pubmed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between 1998 and 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool; strength of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Changes in serum sodium and measures of safety and tolerance were reported. Eight studies were identified that met inclusion criteria, which included a total of 296 patients. Seven studies were retrospective. All studies found an increase in serum sodium levels associated with oral urea supplementation. Side effects were minimal; one patient discontinued urea due to a side effect (dysgeusia). Urea dose/duration varied among the studies. Based on the serious risk of bias and GRADE criteria, the strength of the evidence was considered low. Oral urea supplementation was associated with increases in serum sodium concentrations among hospitalized adults with hyponatremia, and appears to be safe and well tolerated in this population. Prospective controlled trials are needed to establish the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and potential cost savings of this therapy.Key teaching pointsHyponatremia is associated with negative clinical outcomes among hospitalized adults.Oral urea is now available in the United States, and is currently recommended in Europe to treat chronic hyponatremia.This systematic review shows that oral urea supplementation may be associated with increases in serum sodium levels among hospitalized adults with hyponatremia, and appears safe and well-tolerated; however, the studies reviewed here are at high risk of bias and the available evidence is of low quality, making any recommendation drawn from this data weak.Prospective controlled trials are needed to establish the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and potential cost savings of oral urea supplementation for hyponatremia.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Hyponatremia; Urea; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Sodium; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 35512769
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2022.2036267 -
JAMA Network Open Apr 2022Neurologic adverse events (NAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be fatal but are underexplored. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Neurologic adverse events (NAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be fatal but are underexplored.
OBJECTIVE
To compare NAEs reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of US Food and Drug Administration-approved ICIs with other forms of chemotherapy and placebo.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases (Embase, Ovid, MEDLINE, and Scopus data) and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched from inception through March 1, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase II/III RCTs evaluating the use of ICIs were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished trials were excluded from the analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently performed screening of trials using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. NAEs were recorded for each arm. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The risk of NAEs with ICI use compared with any drug regimen, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and placebo.
RESULTS
A total 39 trials including 23 705 patients were analyzed (16 135 [68.0%] men, 7866 [33.1%] White). The overall risk of a NAE was lower in the ICI group (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) and in the subgroup of RCTs comparing ICI use with chemotherapy (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.39). In the subgroup of RCTs comparing ICI with placebo, the overall risk of NAE was significantly higher in the ICI group (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.30-1.89). Peripheral neuropathy (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.51) and dysgeusia (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63) were significantly lower in the ICI group. Headache was more common with the use of ICIs (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59). In the subgroup analysis of RCTs comparing ICI use with chemotherapy, peripheral neuropathy (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.17), dysgeusia (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85), and paresthesia (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.67) were significantly lower in the ICI group. RCTs comparing ICIs with placebo showed a higher risk of headache with ICI use (RR, 1.63; 95%, CI, 1.32-2.02).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this meta-analysis suggest that the overall risk of NAEs, peripheral neuropathy, and dysgeusia is lower with the use of ICI. When compared with chemotherapy, the overall risk of NAE, peripheral neuropathy, paresthesia, and dysgeusia was lower with ICI use; however, when compared with placebo, the risk of NAEs is higher with the use of ICI.
Topics: Dysgeusia; Female; Headache; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Male; Paresthesia; United States
PubMed: 35438755
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7722 -
International Journal of Preventive... 2021Evidence showed that partial or complete loss of smell and taste might be a possible primary symptom of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This study aimed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence showed that partial or complete loss of smell and taste might be a possible primary symptom of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically review and pool all available evidence on the olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
In this systematic review, a comprehensive search was carried out systematically through e-databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS); that was limited to English-language studies published from 2019 up to 6 May 2020. Afterward, all studies reported the taste and smell dysfunction in the COVID-19 patients were included. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The pooled prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was estimated using the random effects meta-analysis method.
RESULTS
Among 28 eligible included studies in this systematic review, finally, 22 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. According to the random effect meta-analysis, the global pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval) of any olfactory dysfunction, anosmia, and hyposmia was 55% (40%-70%), 40% (22%-57%), and 40% (20%-61%) respectively. The pooled estimated prevalence of any gustatory dysfunction, ageusia, and dysgeusia was 41% (23%-59%), 31% (3%-59%), and 34% (19%-48%) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction is prevalent among COVID-19 patients. Therefore, olfactory and gustatory dysfunction seems to be part of important symptoms and notify for the diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in the early phase of the infection.
PubMed: 35070203
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_484_20 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Nov 2022To compare the efficacy and safety characteristics of endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery based on current evidence. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety characteristics of endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery based on current evidence.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted of three medical databases, focusing on randomised, controlled studies or observational studies. Data related to the efficacy and safety of each technique were extracted. Outcome data were summarised using the pooled mean differences or pooled odds ratios, along with their 95 per cent confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Success rate was evaluated by estimating air-bone gap improvement; this revealed comparable outcomes for the two techniques (mean difference = -0.20; 95 per cent confidence interval = -0.53, 0.14). No statistically significant difference was detected concerning post-operative complications, except for dysgeusia (odds ratio = -1.12; 95 per cent confidence interval = -1.97, -0.28) and pain (odds ratio = -2.00; 95 per cent confidence interval = -2.97, -1.04), which favoured the endoscopic approach.
CONCLUSION
Though both techniques result in commensurate outcomes concerning success rate, post-operative pain and dysgeusia favour the endoscopic approach. Further high-quality studies are needed to adequately compare the two methods.
Topics: Humans; Dysgeusia; Stapes Surgery; Stapes; Endoscopy; Ossicular Prosthesis
PubMed: 35012693
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215121004436