Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0030193 (pain)
 261,466 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

The mucosal protective effect of sucralfate (Ulcogant) was evaluated in a prospective randomised clinical study during radiation therapy. Twenty-four patients received 1 g of a sucralfate suspension 4 times a day orally for 5 min each. This group was compared with a control group of 21 patients receiving standard oral hygiene consisting of frequent tooth cleaning and disinfection of the oral and pharyngeal mucosa. The radiation technique was telecobalt therapy in two opposing fields using the shrinking field technique, with an electron boost to the posterior lymph nodes; the dosage was 60-70 Gy in daily fractions of 2 Gy. Mucosal reactions, pain and difficulty in swallowing were recorded twice a week. We also checked the patient's weight during treatment. The patients showed significant differences in all parameters, and lower weight loss compared with the control group. Minimal or absent mucosal inflammation pain or dysphagia were found in 88%, 79% and 83% respectively, while 43% and 29% and 52% of the controls had such mild radiation side-effects. Local effectivity appeared to be less in the hypopharynx due to shorter time of application compared with mouth and oropharynx. There were no side-effects from the sucralfate. Sucralfate prophylaxis is effective and easy to apply in the protection of mucosa during irradiation therapy.
 ...
PMID:[Radiotherapy of head-neck neoplasms: prevention of inflammation of the mucosa by sucralfate treatment]. 217 76

In reviewing the literature on burn therapy and observing clinical burn care, we noted differences among institutions and individual experts in several areas. To study variation in burn care, we surveyed the 140 burn centers listed by the American Burn Association to determine how burn care is currently administered in the United States and Canada. Responses were obtained from 83 hospitals (60%). The survey addressed resuscitation, operative and nonoperative wound care, medications, antimicrobial agents, and pain control. The major influence on care appeared to be the experience of the director (considered "very influential" in 85%) compared with the literature ("very influential" in 12%) and habit/what works for us ("very influential" in 48%). The Parkland formula was used "always" or "often" by 78%, and the Brooke formula "never" by 81% of respondents. Lactated Ringer's solution was the most popular initial fluid, and most (78%) respondents changed fluids after 24 hours. However, the fluids used in the second 24 hours varied equally among several choices. The use of colloids also varied without a set pattern. Furosemide (Lasix) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were used "rarely" or "never" by 67% of centers in the acute stage. H2 blockers were used for gastritis prophylaxis "always" or "often" in 60% (vs 53% for antacids and 20% for sucralfate [Carafate]). Tube feedings were started on day 1 after burn injury "always" by less than 30% of centers. Total parenteral nutrition was not commonly used. Most centers use of silver sulfadiazine on the body and hands, but facial topical antimicrobial therapy varied.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Regional and institutional variation in burn care. 772 16

Oral mucositis is one of the major toxicities caused by radiation therapy (RT) treatments to the head and neck. The clinical efficacy of sucralfate (Carafate R) mouthwash for head and neck cancer patients (HNC) is not consistent across studies. In this study, it was hypothesized that if the particles in the original sucralfate suspension were micronized (i.e., < or = 25 microns) then the coating action of the mouthwash in the oral cavity would be enhanced. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of micronized sucralfate (Carafate R) mouthwash and salt & soda mouthwash in terms of the severity of the mucositis, the severity of mucositis-related pain, and the time required to heal RT-induced mucositis in patients with HNC. Severe mucositis and related pain can interfere with the ingestion of food and fluids, so patients' body weights were measured as well. All patients in this randomized clinical trial carried out a systematic oral hygiene protocol called the PRO-SELF: Mouth Aware (PSMA) Program. Patients who developed RT-induced mucositis anytime during their course of RT were randomized to one of the two mouthwashes and followed to the completion of RT and at one month following RT. Two referral sites were used for the study. Repeated measures occurred with the following instruments/variables: MacDibbs Mouth Assessment and weight. Demographic, disease, and cancer treatment information was also obtained. Thirty patients successfully completed the study. The typical participant was male (70%), married/partnered (70%), White (63%), not working or retired (73%), and had an average of 14.5 years of education (SD = 3.7). T-tests and Chi-square analyses with an alpha set at 0.05 were used to compare differences between the two mouthwashes. No significant differences were found in the number of days to onset of mucositis (i.e., 16 +/- 8.4 days). When patients had their worst MacDibbs score, (i.e., the most severe mucositis), there were no significant differences between the mouthwashes as to MacDibbs score, the RT dose received, or ratings of pain (upon swallowing). Similarly, at the end of RT, no significant differences were found between mouthwashes as to MacDibbs scores or ratings of pain (upon swallowing). At the one-month follow-up assessment no significant differences were found between the mouthwashes in MacDibbs scores or pain ratings (upon swallowing). The analysis of the efficacy of the two mouthwashes revealed no significant differences in the time to heal (in days) from the RT-induced mucositis. The findings from this trial provide important clinical information regarding cost analysis of RT mucositis management. Given that there is no significant difference in efficacy between micronized sucralfate and salt & soda, use of the less costly salt & soda is prudent and cost-effective.
 ...
PMID:Radiation-induced mucositis: a randomized clinical trial of micronized sucralfate versus salt & soda mouthwashes. 1264 6