Eslami, H., Pouralibaba, F., Falsafi, P., Bohluli, S., Najati, B., Negahdari, R., & Ghanizadeh, M. (2016). Efficacy of Hypozalix spray and propolis mouthwash for prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in leukemic patients: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects, 10, 226–233.

DOI Link

Study Purpose

To evaluate Hypozalix artificial saliva and propolis mouthwash efficacy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in patients with leukemia.

Intervention Characteristics/Basic Study Process

Double-blind RCT with patients assigned to three groups. The control group used the CHX mouthwash and fluconazole. Group 1 and 2, Hypozalix and propolis mouthwashes, respectively, added to combination therapy used in control group. Results compared between three groups after 14 days.

Sample Characteristics

  • N: 72   
  • AGE: 1-71 years
  • MALES: Matched  
  • FEMALES: Matched
  • CURRENT TREATMENT: Chemotherapy
  • KEY DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: Leukemia and chemotherapy
  • OTHER KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: Starting similar chemotherapy regimens, matched

Setting

  • SITE: Single site   
  • SETTING TYPE: Inpatient    
  • LOCATION: Oncology Dept of Shahid Ghazi Hospital in Tabriz

Phase of Care and Clinical Applications

  • PHASE OF CARE: Active anti-tumor treatment
  • APPLICATIONS: Pediatrics, elder care

Study Design

Double-blind RCT, one control and two intervention groups.

Measurement Instruments/Methods

Descriptive two-part questionnaire checklist and OM severity checklist. The tool used to collect data was a two-part questionnaire and a checklist to determine the severity of mucositis. The two-part questionnaire was used to collect demographic data (age and gender) and consisted of questions on the type of disease, history of chemotherapy, presence or absence of systemic disease other than malignancy, and the presence or absence of skin or respiratory allergy. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of questions on the severity of xerostomia, ease of mastication and swallowing, the severity of burning sensation, the quality of sleep during the night, and the tendency to continue to use the medications; the patients completed this part before and after the intervention. In addition, in order to determine the severity of oral mucositis, a checklist was used, which was designed based on the criteria of WHO; based on these criteria, oral mucositis is divided into five distinct grades from 0 to 4.17. To determine validity of the questionnaire, content validity method was used. To determine reliability of the questionnaire, simultaneous observation technique was used. To this end, observations were carried out by two observers with similar characteristics, using similar guidelines on 10 samples, which yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.94. Then, the questionnaire was completed using interviews and patient files.

Results

After 14 days, 50% of patients in the control group (CHX mouthwash and fluconazole) exhibited signs of recovery from xerostomia. For group 2 (propolis mouthwash and CHX mouthwash and fluconazole), 50% of patients exhibited some signs of recovery from xerostomia. 95.8% patients in group 1 (CHX mouthwash and fluconazole and Hypozalix spray) reported recovery from xerostomia. Chi-squared test statistically significant (p = 0.0006). At the end of the study, 29.17% in control group, 87.5% in group 1, and 70.83% in group 2 exhibited easy mastication. Chi-squared test significant statistically (p = 0.0001). 33.3% in control group, 63.3% in group 1, and 87.5% of patients in group 2 exhibited easy swallowing. Chi-squared test statistically significant (p < 0.0001). At end of study, 33.3% in control group, 58.3% in group 1, and 91.6% in group 2 were interested in continuing to use the product. Chi-squared test statistically significant (p = 0.0002). 16.67% of patients in control group, 25% in group 1, and 62.5% in group 2 exhibited more full night’s sleep and less waking up. Chi-squared test statistically significant (p = 0.0018). In relation to an improvement in oral burning sensation, 8.33% of patients in control group, 25% in group 1, and 91.67% in group 2 exhibited decrease in burning sensation. Chi-squared test significant statistically (p < 0.0001). 62.5% of patients in control group, 62.5% in group 1, and 95.8% in group 2 had a higher rate of feeling comfortable. Chi-squared test was significant (p = 0.0103). A clinical examination of patients five days after using the medications showed 8.33% of patients in control group, 12.5% in group 1, and 50% in group 2 were free of mucositis. However, 25% of patients in control group and 16.6% in group 1 had grade 4 mucositis. None in group 2 exhibited grade 4 mucositis. Chi-squared test significant (p = 0.0007). A clinical examination of patients 10 days after using the medications showed 25% of patients in control group, 33.3% in group 1, and 50% in group 2 were free of mucositis. 12.5% of patients in control group and 4.17% in group 1 had grade 4 mucositis. None in group 2 had grade 4 mucositis. However, chi-squared test indicated that the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.1135).

Conclusions

50% of patients in control group, 95.8% of patients who received Hypozalix, and 50% who received Propolis exhibited decrease in xerostomia severity. 29.17% of patients in control group, 87.5% in Hypozalix group, and 70.83% in Propolis group exhibited easy mastication. 33.3% of patients in control group, 63.3% of patients in Hypozalix group, and 87.5% of patients in Propolis group exhibited easy swallowing. 91.6% of patients in propolis group were interested in continuing to use product. The lowest tendency was seen in control group patients, followed by those in Hypozalix group. 62.5% of patients in propolis group exhibited less waking up at night and 95.8% of them had a higher rate of feeling comfortable. The lowest burning sensation was detected in that group. Propolis resulted in significantly greater decrease in severity of mucositis compared to Hypozalix and control group five days after using medications. These contradictory results might be attributed to differences in study designs and in Propolis origins. In many cases, use of Propolis mouthwash yielded significantly better results, and patients exhibited a greater tendency to continue to use it. If results of this study are confirmed by other studies, treatment with Propolis can reduce secondary oral infections and mucositis caused by chemotherapy. Since Propolis and Hypozalix had positive effects on decreasing mucositis induced by chemotherapy in this study, toothpastes may be designed with propolis base. Hypozalix spray or propolis mouthwash in association with CHX mouthwash and fluconazole simultaneously at the start of chemotherapy resulted in decrease in chemotherapy complications after 14 days. Propolis mouthwash yielded better results and the patients exhibited greater tendency to continue to use it.

Limitations

  • Small sample (< 100)
  • Other limitations/explanation: Small study with limitations in descriptive measurement.