Some misinformation has been posted today that some people might think is true.
First of all, the drug Fluconazole is not used for oral mucositis, in case any hasty reader was under that impression.
It is used for oral candida inflection, sometimes referred to as "thrush." There is an oral suspension of this -- in other words, a rinse. The idea that someone would use a vaginal suppository off label, dissolved in the mouth, instead of the oral rinse, is bizarre.
Furthermore, there is no formulation of Fluconazole in vaginal suppository form. It can be made by a compounding pharmacist. This would be unusual.
As far as the theory that a vaginal suppository dissolved in the mouth would be more effective than an oral rinse, again this is not something generally recognized as true. Think about it: with an oral rinse, the patient can make sure that every possible square millimeter of the oral cavity has contact with the drug. Also, the patient can gargle with this, so that the drug stays in contact with the throat membranes for a relatively long period of time.
Now, compare this with the idea that someone who has incredibly painful lesions in their mouth -- often leading to dehydration because they can't stand the pain of swallowing -- is going to dissolve a vaginal suppository (with who knows what weird excipients) in their mouth -- when doing so is going to involve sucking on this thing, when every action is painful, and when saliva production is painful? This is patently absurd. Why would any doctor torture a patient with this, when the oral rinse is both more effective in reaching all areas of the oral cavity, and easier to administer? How could anyone think that a lozenge intended for another part of the body could possibly be more effective than a rinse?
So, suggesting that a lozenge form of Brilacidin would have been a better way to administer the Bril-OM is not correct. Also, one of the features of the Bril-OM RINSE is that it is NOT swallowed -- it is a rinse which is spit out, to prevent systemic absorption. It is VERY important NOT to have systemic absorption, when you are dealing with a very sick patient who is loaded up with other drugs. I defy you to suck on a lozenge, get the medication to every surface of the mouth and throat, and SPIT IT OUT. It is impossible.
I speak with some knowledge of this, because I do not claim to be a doctor, but I HAVE used oral rinses and lozenge forms of medication. I stand by my statements as to ease of administration and effectiveness of coverage.
It is absolutely untrue that a lozenge formulation is desirable and superior to the method of delivery chosen by the scientists of IPIX.
First of all, the drug Fluconazole is not used for oral mucositis, in case any hasty reader was under that impression.
It is used for oral candida inflection, sometimes referred to as "thrush." There is an oral suspension of this -- in other words, a rinse. The idea that someone would use a vaginal suppository off label, dissolved in the mouth, instead of the oral rinse, is bizarre.
Furthermore, there is no formulation of Fluconazole in vaginal suppository form. It can be made by a compounding pharmacist. This would be unusual.
As far as the theory that a vaginal suppository dissolved in the mouth would be more effective than an oral rinse, again this is not something generally recognized as true. Think about it: with an oral rinse, the patient can make sure that every possible square millimeter of the oral cavity has contact with the drug. Also, the patient can gargle with this, so that the drug stays in contact with the throat membranes for a relatively long period of time.
Now, compare this with the idea that someone who has incredibly painful lesions in their mouth -- often leading to dehydration because they can't stand the pain of swallowing -- is going to dissolve a vaginal suppository (with who knows what weird excipients) in their mouth -- when doing so is going to involve sucking on this thing, when every action is painful, and when saliva production is painful? This is patently absurd. Why would any doctor torture a patient with this, when the oral rinse is both more effective in reaching all areas of the oral cavity, and easier to administer? How could anyone think that a lozenge intended for another part of the body could possibly be more effective than a rinse?
So, suggesting that a lozenge form of Brilacidin would have been a better way to administer the Bril-OM is not correct. Also, one of the features of the Bril-OM RINSE is that it is NOT swallowed -- it is a rinse which is spit out, to prevent systemic absorption. It is VERY important NOT to have systemic absorption, when you are dealing with a very sick patient who is loaded up with other drugs. I defy you to suck on a lozenge, get the medication to every surface of the mouth and throat, and SPIT IT OUT. It is impossible.
I speak with some knowledge of this, because I do not claim to be a doctor, but I HAVE used oral rinses and lozenge forms of medication. I stand by my statements as to ease of administration and effectiveness of coverage.
It is absolutely untrue that a lozenge formulation is desirable and superior to the method of delivery chosen by the scientists of IPIX.
7
