AN ASSESSMENT OF DRUG-INDUCED ORAL ULCERS IN CARDIAC AND CANCER PATIENTS: A PHARMACOVIGILANCE STUDY IN GENERAL DENTAL PRACTICE”
Main Article Content
Keywords
Malignancy, Oral ulcers, Chemotherapy and drug induced oral ulcers
Abstract
Introduction: Drug-induced oral ulcers are a clinically significant yet underreported adverse drug reaction (ADR), especially among patients receiving chronic systemic therapies such as antiplatelets, antihypertensives, and chemotherapeutic agents. In India, a growing population of cardiac and cancer patients often presents to general dental practitioners with oral mucosal complaints that are overlooked or mis-attributed.
Aim of the Study: The study aims to determine the prevalence and characteristics of drug-induced oral ulcers and identify commonly implicated drugs. The objectives were to assess the types and symptomatology of the ulcers and their and their treatment.
Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted for six months in the department of Dentistry, of a tertiary Medical College. 246 adult patients diagnosed with cardiac or cancer conditions receiving systemic pharmacotherapy for one month were included. The patients presenting with oral ulcerative lesions were included. A structured proforma with demographic details, drug history, ulcer characteristics, and pain severity was used supported by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) to assess the severity of the symptoms. Suspected ADRs were assessed using the WHO-UMC causality scale, and documented using the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission's PvPI reporting tools. Data was analyzed using SPSS v25.
Results: Preliminary evidence suggested a high frequency of mucosal toxicity with methotrexate, everolimus, ACE inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy. It was anticipated that a substantial proportion of dental practitioners remained unaware of ADR reporting systems, revealing a pharmaco-vigilance gap in dental settings.
Discussion: The integration of pharmaco-vigilance into general dental practice is essential for enhancing drug safety surveillance. Early identification and reporting of oral ADRs can improve interdisciplinary care and reduce the burden of avoidable complications in vulnerable populations. Moreover, routine training in ADR reporting and implementation of clinical decision tools may bolster vigilance among dentists.
Conclusion: The study provided critical insights into the burden, drug patterns, and reporting behavior related to drug-induced oral ulcers in medically complex patients. Findings are expected to inform policy and practice guidelines for strengthening pharmaco-vigilance in dental care systems in India and beyond.
References
2. Elad S, Zadik Y, Hewson I, et al. Drug-induced oral mucosal disease: Diagnostic criteria and grading system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;125(2):106–116.
3. Ramaswamy P, Kamath D, Kini P, et al. Awareness and implementation of pharmacovigilance in dental practice: A South Indian survey. Indian J Pharmacol. 2021;53(3):198–202.
4. World Health Organization. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Uppsala Monitoring Centre [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 May 26]. Available from: https://www.who-umc.org.
5. Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission. Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form for Healthcare Professionals. PvPI; 2024. Available from: https://www.ipc.gov.in.
6. De A, Das A, Sinha R, et al. Methotrexate-induced mucocutaneous adverse effects: A case series and literature review. Indian J Dermatol. 2019;64(4):310–314.
7. Fatahzadeh M. Chemotherapy-induced oral mucosal lesions. Dent Clin North Am. 2020;64(2):387–399.
8. Kotian R, Gokhale R, Naik P. Evaluation of dental practitioners' knowledge and attitude toward pharmacovigilance in India. J Adv Clin Res Insights. 2022;9(3):102–107.
9. Aggarwal A, Arora A, Joshi R. Integrating pharmacovigilance into dental education: A call for action. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2020;12(6):567–572.
10. Singh H, Sharma A. Strengthening pharmacovigilance in India: The role of the dental profession. J Clin Diagn Res. 2021;15(8):ZE01–ZE05.
11. Patil S, Rao RS, Ganavi BS. Oral ulceration: A clinical study of 100 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2018;22(1):73-7.
12. Sonis ST. Oral mucositis in cancer therapy. J Support Oncol. 2019;17(1):20-5.
13. Lalla RV, Bowen J, Barasch A, et al. MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. Cancer. 2014;120(10):1453–61.
14. Elad S, Zadik Y. Oral complications of chemotherapy: mucositis, dysgeusia, dysphagia. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2014;28(3):447-62.
15. Scully C, Sonis S, Diz PD. Oral mucositis. Oral Dis. 2006;12(3):229–41.
16. Villa A, Sonis ST. Mucositis: pathobiology and management. Curr Opin Oncol. 2015;27(3):159–64.
17. Sonis ST. Oral mucositis in cancer therapy. J Support Oncol. 2019;17(1):20-5.
18. Elad S, Zadik Y. Oral complications of chemotherapy. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2014;28(3):447–62.
19. Lalla RV, Bowen J, Barasch A, et al. MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. Cancer. 2014;120(10):1453–61.
20. Epstein JB, Barasch A. Taste disorders in cancer patients: pathogenesis, assessment, and management. Oral Oncol. 2010;46(2):77–81.
21. Shetty R, Bhat R, Udupa N. Evaluation of adverse drug reactions in cancer chemotherapy. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2022;84(2):344–51.
22. WHO-UMC. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Uppsala: UMC; 2020.
23. Scully C, Shotts R. Drug reactions in the mouth. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(5):284–91.
24. Mathur VP, Dhillon JK. Dental ADR reporting in India: Current status and way forward. Indian J Pharmacol. 2021;53(3):153–7.
25. Villa A, Sonis ST. Mucositis: pathobiology and management. Curr Opin Oncol. 2015;27(3):159–64.