E Vasconcelos Stefane Caroline Carvalho Moura, Guerra Eliete Neves Silva, de Menêses Amanda Gomes, Dos Reis Paula Elaine Diniz, Ferreira Elaine Barros
Nursing Graduate Program, School of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Laboratory of Oral Histopathology, School of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Support Care Cancer. 2023 Mar 28;31(4):240. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-07685-8.
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation as a radioprotective intervention in the management of radiation dermatitis (RD).
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Six databases and the gray literature were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis was performed only with studies that evaluated the same intervention. Methodology of included studies was evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0), and the certainty of evidence was assessed by the GRADE instrument.
Seventeen RCTs were included in this review. These evaluated different types of oral supplementations. Findings from three meta-analyses demonstrated no significant benefits to the more severe grades of RD, as oral curcuminoids (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.29; P = 0.19; I = 88%), glutamine (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.03; P = 0.06; I = 78%) or Wobe-Mugos (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.14; P = 0.11; I = 72%). Also, the certainty of the evidence of outcomes evaluated was moderate or low. Except for a few gastrointestinal adverse events, oral supplementation was well tolerated.
Most oral supplements cannot yet be recommended to manage RD due to insufficient or conflicting evidence. However, despite no significant results, glutamine was shown to be a promising substance in terms of the potential radioprotective effect and may be well tolerated. These results suggest that more RCTs with larger samples are needed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of glutamine in the management of RD.
评估口服补充剂作为一种辐射防护干预措施在放射性皮炎(RD)管理中的有效性和安全性。
系统评价和荟萃分析。检索六个数据库及灰色文献,查找随机对照临床试验(RCT)。仅对评估相同干预措施的研究进行荟萃分析。采用Cochrane随机试验偏倚风险工具(RoB 2.0)评估纳入研究的方法学,并通过GRADE工具评估证据的确定性。
本综述纳入了17项RCT。这些研究评估了不同类型的口服补充剂。三项荟萃分析的结果表明,对于更严重等级的RD,口服姜黄素类化合物(RR,0.59;95%CI,0.27至1.29;P = 0.19;I = 88%)、谷氨酰胺(RR,0.40;95%CI,0.15至1.03;P = 0.06;I = 78%)或沃博-穆戈斯(RR,0.57;95%CI,0.29至1.14;P = 0.11;I = 72%)均无显著益处。此外,所评估结果的证据确定性为中等或低等。除少数胃肠道不良事件外,口服补充剂耐受性良好。
由于证据不足或相互矛盾,目前大多数口服补充剂尚不能推荐用于管理RD。然而,尽管结果不显著,但谷氨酰胺在潜在的辐射防护作用方面显示出有前景,且耐受性良好。这些结果表明,需要更多大样本的RCT来评估谷氨酰胺在RD管理中的疗效、安全性和耐受性。