26 juli 2012: een dubbelblinde placebo gecontroleerde fase II studie heeft niet aan kunnen tonen dat Traumeel S. stomatitis statistisch significant kan voorkomen bij jong volwassenen die een stamceltransplantatie moeten ondergaan. Dit in tegenstelling tot een studie uit 2001, zie hieronder. Onderaan hebben we abstract van deze studie uit 2012 toegevoegd: Traumeel S in preventing and treating mucositis in young patients undergoing SCT: a report of the Children's Oncology Group.

Verder onderaan een meta analyse van het Cochrane Institute toegevoegd welke middelen wel stomatitis kunnen voorkomen bij met name chemo.

Cancer 2001 Aug 1;92(3):684-690

A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL S in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation.

Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y, Stein J, Ben-Zvi N, Freedman LS, Branski D.

The Institute of Research on Complementary Medicine, The Center of Integrated Complementary Medicine, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, P.O. Box 3235, Jerusalem 91031, Israel. oberbaum@netvision.net.il

BACKGROUND: Stomatitis is a common consequence of chemotherapy and a condition for which there is little effective treatment. Although the management of patients with other chemotherapy-related toxicities has improved in recent years, the incidence of stomatitis is increasing because of more intensive treatment and is often a dose limiting factor in chemotherapy. The authors assessed the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy, TRAUMEEL S(R), in the management of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation.

METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted in 32 patients ages 3-25 years who had undergone
allogeneic (16 patients) or autologous (16 patients) stem cell transplantation.
Of the 30 evaluable patients, 15 were assigned placebo, and 15 were assigned TRAUMEEL S both as a mouth rinse, administered five times daily from 2 days after transplantation for a minimum of 14 days, or until at least 2 days after all signs of stomatitis were absent. Stomatitis scores were evaluated according to the World Health Organization grading system for mucositis. RESULTS: A total of five patients (33%) in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group did not develop stomatitis compared with only one patient (7%) in the placebo group. Stomatitis worsened in only 7 patients (47%) in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group compared with 14 patients (93%) in the placebo group. The mean area under the curve stomatitis scores were 10.4 in the TRAUMEEL S treatment group and 24.3 in the placebo group. This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that TRAUMEEL S may reduce significantly the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.

Publication Types:
Clinical trial
Randomized controlled trial

PMID: 11505416

No statistically beneficial effect from Traumeel was demonstrated for mucositis

Bone Marrow Transplantation , (16 April 2012) | doi:10.1038/bmt.2012.30

Traumeel S in preventing and treating mucositis in young patients undergoing SCT: a report of the Children's Oncology Group

S F Sencer, T Zhou, L S Freedman, J A Ives, Z Chen, D Wall, M L Nieder, S A Grupp, L C Yu, I Sahdev, W B Jonas, J D Wallace and M Oberbaum

Mucositis can be a serious complication of hematopoietic SCT (HSCT). A previous phase II trial in 32 children undergoing HSCT reported a beneficial effect of the homeopathic remedy Traumeel S. The Children's Oncology Group sought to replicate the results in a multi-institutional trial. The study was an international multi-center, double-blind, randomized trial comparing Traumeel with placebo in patients aged 3–25 years undergoing myeloablative HSCT. Traumeel/placebo was started on Day −1 as a five-time daily mouth rinse. Efficacy of the treatment was assessed using the modified Walsh scale for mucositis, scored daily from Day −1 to 20 days after HCST. The main outcome was the sum of Walsh scale scores (area-under-the-curve (AUC)) over this period. Other outcomes included narcotic use, days of total parenteral feeding, days of nasogastric feeding and adverse events. In 181 evaluable patients, there was no statistical difference in mucositis (AUC) in the Traumeel group (76.7) compared with placebo (67.3) (P=0.13). There was a trend towards less narcotic usage in the Traumeel patients. No statistically beneficial effect from Traumeel was demonstrated for mucositis. We could not confirm that Traumeel is an effective treatment for mucositis in children undergoing HSCT.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD000978.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.

Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Eden OB.

Source

School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, MANDEC, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH. helen.worthington@manchester.ac.uk

Update in

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD000978.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS:

Two hundred and two studies were eligible. One hundred and thirty two were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 71 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 5217 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, amifostine, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, chlorhexidine, clarithromycin, folinic acid, glutamine, GM-CSF, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, oral care, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline, prostaglandin, sucralfate, traumeel and zinc sulphate. Of the 29 interventions included in trials, 10 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis. Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were: amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing moderate and severe mucositis RR = 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.95) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.97), antibiotic paste or pastille demonstrated a moderate benefit in preventing mucositis RR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97), hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52), and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RR = 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.91), 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.68). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, honey, oral care protocols, povidone and zinc sulphate. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient experiencing moderate or severe mucositis over a baseline incidence of 60% for amifostine is 10 (95% CI 7 to 33), antibiotic paste or pastille 13 (95% CI 8 to 56), hydrolytic enzyme 4 (95% CI 3 to 6) and ice chips 5 (95% CI 3 to 19). When the baseline incidence is 40%/90% the NNTs for amifostine are 16/7, for antibiotic paste or pastille 19/7, for hydrolytic enzyme 5/3 and for ice chips 7/3. The general reporting of RCTs was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.