Strong Recommendation For Use Research Articles

What solid evidence do systematic reviews provide about post-traumatic orbital reconstruction materials? An overview of systematic reviews

Orbital fractures pose considerable challenges in the field of maxillofacial surgery. With advancements in materials engineering, various models and biomaterials have emerged for orbital reconstructions. Given the increasing number of Systematic Reviews (SRs) on orbital reconstructions, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of SRs about biomaterials used in these procedures. Employing the PRIOR checklist, we scrutinized 14 SRs addressing materials for orbital reconstructions and their findings. The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBIS tool, while the methodological quality of the reviews was assessed through the AMSTAR 2 tool. Our analysis revealed five low- or critically low-quality evidence, four of which had a strong recommendation for use and one that had a weak one. Despite the abundant literature on orbital reconstructions, high-quality evidence was notably absent. Still, this overview has generated pivotal and clear recommendations for surgical practice. We advocate for further randomized controlled trials featuring robust research designs to enhance the quality and reliability of evidence within this domain.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Evaluation of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Outpatients Living with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Heart Failure Society have defined guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) as 4 foundational medications. Despite strong recommendations for use of GDMT in HFrEF, current practice alignment with guidelines is unknown. The primary objectives were to determine the proportion of patients for whom optimized GDMT for HFrEF was prescribed, to describe the doses of foundational medications achieved, and to describe any documented rationale limiting the optimization of GDMT. The secondary objectives were to describe documented pharmacist activities outside of scheduled multidisciplinary appointments at the heart function clinic (HFC) and to describe heart failure-related hospital encounters in 2021. A retrospective cohort study using medical records of patients with HFrEF who were receiving treatment at the Regina HFC as of December 31, 2021, was conducted. Of the 129 patients included in the study, 61 (47.3%) were prescribed optimized GDMT. Specifically, within the individual foundational medication classes, 82.2% (106/129), 80.6% (104/129), 79.1% (102/129), and 74.4% (96/129) of patients received optimized therapy with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, β-blocker, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, respectively. Documented rationale was not available in 35.8% (38/106) of instances of suboptimal utilization of GDMT and in 41.7% (60/144) of instances of suboptimal dosing of GDMT. The most common documented rationale for suboptimal utilization was intolerance to the medication (33.0% [35/106]), and the most common rationale for suboptimal dosing was intolerance to dose increases (57.6% [83/144]). Pharmacists documented a total of 553 patient care activities for 58.9% (76/129) of the patients, outside scheduled multidisciplinary appointments in the HFC. Sixteen patients (12.4%) had heart failure-related hospital encounters a total of 31 times in 2021. Although many patients were receiving the benefits of multidisciplinary care at the Regina HFC, there remained a treatment gap in the use of GDMT for HFrEF. These findings will be used to inform strategies to improve clinic processes, including efficient identification of patients requiring optimization of GDMT, who would benefit the most from multidisciplinary care.

The IPTA Nashville Consensus Conference on Post-Transplant lymphoproliferative disorders after solid organ transplantation in children: III - Consensus guidelines for Epstein-Barr virus load and other biomarker monitoring.

The International Pediatric Transplant Association convened an expert consensus conference to assess current evidence and develop recommendations for various aspects of care relating to post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders after solid organ transplantation in children. In this report from the Viral Load and Biomarker Monitoring Working Group, we reviewed the existing literature regarding the role of Epstein-Barr viral load and other biomarkers in peripheral blood for predicting the development of PTLD, for PTLD diagnosis, and for monitoring of response to treatment. Key recommendations from the group highlighted the strong recommendation for use of the term EBV DNAemia instead of "viremia" to describe EBV DNA levels in peripheral blood as well as concerns with comparison of EBV DNAemia measurement results performed at different institutions even when tests are calibrated using the WHO international standard. The working group concluded that either whole blood or plasma could be used as matrices for EBV DNA measurement; optimal specimen type may be clinical context dependent. Whole blood testing has some advantages for surveillance to inform pre-emptive interventions while plasma testing may be preferred in the setting of clinical symptoms and treatment monitoring. However, EBV DNAemia testing alone was not recommended for PTLD diagnosis. Quantitative EBV DNAemia surveillance to identify patients at risk for PTLD and to inform pre-emptive interventions in patients who are EBV seronegative pre-transplant was recommended. In contrast, with the exception of intestinal transplant recipients or those with recent primary EBV infection prior to SOT, surveillance was not recommended in pediatric SOT recipients EBV seropositive pre-transplant. Implications of viral load kinetic parameters including peak load and viral set point on pre-emptive PTLD prevention monitoring algorithms were discussed. Use of additional markers, including measurements of EBV specific cell mediated immunity was discussed but not recommended though the importance of obtaining additional data from prospective multicenter studies was highlighted as a key research priority.

Is There a Difference in the Clinical Efficacy of Diosmin and Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disorders? Review of Available Evidence.

Flavonoids are oral venoactive drugs frequently prescribed to relieve the symptoms of chronic venous disorders (CVD). Among venoactive drugs, diosmin is a naturally occurring flavonoid glycoside that can be isolated from various plant sources; it can also be obtained after conversion of hesperidin extracted from citrus rinds. Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a preparation that contains mainly diosmin and a small fraction of hesperidin. We performed a state-of-the-art literature review to collect and analyze well-conducted randomized clinical studies comparing diosmin – also called non-micronized or hemisynthetic diosmin – 600 mg a day and MPFF, 1000 mg a day. Three clinical studies met the criteria and were included for this literature review. These clinical studies showed a significant decrease of CVD symptom intensity (up to approximately 50%) and global patient satisfaction after one-to-six-month treatment with diosmin or MPFF, without statistical differences between these two forms of diosmin. Both treatments were well tolerated with few mild adverse drug reactions reported. Overall, based on this literature review, there is no clinical benefit to increase the dose of diosmin beyond 600 mg per day, to use the micronized form, or to add hesperidin, since clinical efficacy on venous symptomatology is achieved with 600 mg per day of pure non-micronized diosmin. This challenges the status of diosmin – 600 mg a day – in guidelines for the management of CVD, which is currently categorized 2C (weak recommendations for use and poor quality of evidence), while the most widely used and assessed preparation MPFF is rated 1B (strong recommendation for use and moderate quality of evidence).

Use of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 in the management of bladder cancer

Over the years, a distant effort has been made to find new prognostic biomarkers in the assessment of accurate response to treatment and detection of recurrences of bladder cancer. Among them, the carbohydrate-rich glycoprotein, Carbohydrate Antigen (CA) 19-9 has shown some usefulness as it is linked with the tumour aggressiveness and the prognosis of disease. Aim of this study is to review available evidence about the role of CA 19-9 in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of bladder cancer. After careful review of the related articles, a total of 16 useful and valued studies were found on the database. These studies evaluated relation of CA 19-9 to various different aspects of bladder cancer. These aspects include use of CA 19-9 as a tool for detection of bladder cancer, its role in the assessment of the prognosis at diagnosis and also looked at the significance of the CA 19-9 in the response to treatment of bladder cancer. These studies indicate that CA19-9 sensitivity and specificity was 71.6 and 91.6 in high-grade tumour and sensitivity of 74% and 83% in Ta and T1 tumours. Serum levels of > 29 U/ml are associated with shorter survival time and carried a 2.54 higher risk of death. High levels in metastatic disease are associated with increase response to chemotherapy. Although these results are encouraging, but due to the limited evidence, there can be no strong recommendation for use of the biomarker CA 19-9 and further studies are needed to establish a useful link.

Summary of the Committee to Advise on Tropical Medicine and Travel (CATMAT) Statement on Travellers' Diarrhea.

Most travellers' diarrhea (TD) infections occur during travel to low- and middle-income countries. Type of travel, duration of stay, age of traveller and presence of certain medical conditions are important factors to consider for risk of TD. The Committee to Advise on Tropical Medicine and Travel (CATMAT) assembled a TD working group to develop recommendations on prevention and treatment of TD in travellers. This document is a summary of the Statement on Travellers' Diarrhea. Following a systematic review of the literature, recommendations on the prevention and treatment of TD were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to evaluate data quality, benefits and harms of the intervention, and values and preferences of the traveller. Other recommendations were based on a review of the literature and expert opinion. Using the GRADE methodology, CATMAT concluded that oral cholera vaccine should not be routinely recommended to prevent TD in Canadian travellers. This recommendation was based on moderate quality data that showed this vaccine was not effective in preventing TD in travellers compared to placebo. Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS), fluoroquinolones or rifaximin are options for the prevention of TD based on high-quality data for BSS and fluoroquinolones and moderate evidence for rifaximin. For the treatment of TD, loperamide (alone or in combination with antibiotics), fluoroquinolones, azithromycin and rifaximin are all options, with varying degrees of data quality. Based on available evidence and expert opinion, CATMAT recommends handwashing or the use of hand sanitizer, as well as prudent choice and preparation of food and beverages as best practices for preventing diarrhea while travelling. At this time, a recommendation cannot be made for either the use of probiotics and prebiotics to prevent TD or the use of BSS to treat TD due to insufficient available evidence. With the exception of BSS for prevention of TD (strong recommendation for use), CATMAT conditionally recommends the use of each of the other GRADE-evaluated preventive and therapeutic products assessed in this Statement. These CATMAT recommendations should be considered as options in the prevention and treatment of TD based on the particular situation of the traveller.

Preventive Migraine Treatment.

This article reviews the evidence base for the preventive treatment of migraine. Evidence-based guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine have recently been published by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and the Canadian Headache Society (CHS), providing valuable guidance for clinicians. Strong evidence exists to support the use of metoprolol, timolol, propranolol, divalproex sodium, sodium valproate, and topiramate for migraine prevention, according to the AAN. Based on best available evidence, adverse event profile, and expert consensus, topiramate, propranolol, nadolol, metoprolol, amitriptyline, gabapentin, candesartan, Petasites (butterbur), riboflavin, coenzyme Q10, and magnesium citrate received a strong recommendation for use from the CHS. Migraine preventive drug treatments are underutilized in clinical practice. Principles of preventive treatment are important to improve compliance, minimize side effects, and improve patient outcomes. Choice of preventive treatment of migraine should be based on the presence of comorbid and coexistent illness, patient preference, reproductive potential and planning, and best available evidence.

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Pharmacological Acute Migraine Treatment Strategies: Choosing the Right Drug for a Specific Patient

Background:In our targeted review (Section 2), 12 acute medications received a strong recommendation for use in acute migraine therapy while four received a weak recommendation for use. Strong recommendations were made to avoid use of two other medications, except for exceptional circumstances. Two anti-emetics received strong recommendations for use as needed.Objective:To organize the available acute migraine medications into acute migraine treatment strategies in order to assist the practitioner in choosing a specific medication(s) for an individual patient.Methods:Acute migraine treatment strategies were developed based on the targeted literature review used for the development of this guideline (Section 2), and a general literature review. Expert consensus groups were used to refine and validate these strategies.Results:Based on evidence for drug efficacy, drug side effects, migraine severity, and coexistent medical disorders, our analysis resulted in the formulation of eight general acute migraine treatment strategies. These could be grouped into four categories: 1) two mild-moderate attack strategies, 2) two moderate-severe attack or NSAID failure strategies, 3) three refractory migraine strategies, and 4) a vasoconstrictor unresponsive-contraindicated strategy. In addition, strategies were developed for menstrual migraine, migraine during pregnancy, and migraine during lactation. The eight general treatment strategies were coordinated with a “combined acute medication approach” to therapy which used features of both the “stratified” and the “step care across attacks” approaches to acute migraine management.Conclusions:The available medications for acute migraine treatment can be organized into a series of strategies based on patient clinical features. These strategies may help practitioners make appropriate acute medication choices for patients with migraine.

Canadian Headache Society Guideline: Acute Drug Therapy for Migraine Headache

The primary objective of this guideline is to assist the practitioner in choosing an appropriate acute medication for an individual with migraine, based on current evidence in the medical literature and expert consensus. It is focused on patients with episodic migraine ( headache on ≤ 14 days a month). A detailed search strategy was used to find a relevant meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomized double-blind controlled trials. Recommendations were graded with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, using a consensus group. In addition, a general literature review and expert consensus were used for aspects of acute therapy for which randomized controlled trials were not available. Twelve acute medications received a strong recommendation for use in acute migraine therapy (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, zomitriptan, ASA, ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, diclofenac potassium, and acetaminophen). Four received a weak recommendation for use (dihydroergotamine, ergotamine, codeine-containing combination analgesics, and tramadol- containing medications). Three of these were NOT recommended for routine use (ergotamine and codeine- and tramadol- containing medications). Strong recommendations were made to avoid use of butorphanol and butalbital- containing medications. Metoclopramide and domperidone were strongly recommended for use when necessary. Our analysis also resulted in the formulation of eight general acute migraine management strategies. These were grouped into: 1) two mild-moderate attack strategies, 2) two moderate-severe attack or NSAID failure strategies, 3) three refractory migraine strategies, and 4) a vasoconstrictor unresponsive-contraindicated strategy. Additional were developed for menstrual migraine during pregnancy, and migraine during lactation. This guideline provides evidence-based advice on acute pharmacological migraine therapy, and should be helpful to both health professionals and patients, The available medications have been organized into a series of strategies based on patient clinical features. These strategies may help practitioners make appropriate acute medication choices for patients with migraine.

Pharmacological Acute Migraine Treatment Strategies: Choosing the Right Drug for a Specific Patient

ABSTRACT:Background:In our targeted review (Section 2), 12 acute medications received a strong recommendation for use in acute migraine therapy while four received a weak recommendation for use. Strong recommendations were made to avoid use of two other medications, except for exceptional circumstances. Two anti-emetics received strong recommendations for use as needed.Objective:To organize the available acute migraine medications into acute migraine treatment strategies in order to assist the practitioner in choosing a specific medication(s) for an individual patient.Methods:Acute migraine treatment strategies were developed based on the targeted literature review used for the development of this guideline (Section 2), and a general literature review. Expert consensus groups were used to refine and validate these strategies.Results:Based on evidence for drug efficacy, drug side effects, migraine severity, and coexistent medical disorders, our analysis resulted in the formulation of eight general acute migraine treatment strategies. These could be grouped into four categories: 1) two mild-moderate attack strategies, 2) two moderate-severe attack or NSAID failure strategies, 3) three refractory migraine strategies, and 4) a vasoconstrictor unresponsive-contraindicated strategy. In addition, strategies were developed for menstrual migraine, migraine during pregnancy, and migraine during lactation. The eight general treatment strategies were coordinated with a “combined acute medication approach” to therapy which used features of both the “stratified” and the “step care across attacks” approaches to acute migraine management.Conclusions:The available medications for acute migraine treatment can be organized into a series of strategies based on patient clinical features. These strategies may help practitioners make appropriate acute medication choices for patients with migraine.

Targeted Review: Medications for Acute Migraine Treatment

Objective:To assess the evidence base for drugs used for acute treatment of episodic migraine (headache on < 14 days a month) in Canada.Methods:A detailed search strategy was employed to find relevant published clinical trials of drugs used in Canada for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Primarily meta-analyses and systematic reviews were included. Where these were not available for a drug or were out of date, individual clinical trial reports were utilized. Only double-blind randomized clinical trials with placebo or active drug controls were included in the analysis. Recommendations and levels of evidence were graded according to the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, using a consensus group.Results:Eighteen acute migraine medications and two adjunctive medications were evaluated. Twelve acute medications received a strong recommendation with supporting high quality evidence for use in acute migraine therapy (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, ASA, ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, diclofenac potassium, and acetaminophen). Four acute medications received a weak recommendation for use with low or moderate quality evidence (dihydroergotamine, ergotamine, codeine-containing combination analgesics, and tramadol-containing combination analgesics). Three of these medications were NOT recommended for routine use (ergotamine, and codeine- and tramadol-containing medications), and strong recommendations were made to avoid use of butorphanol and butalbital-containing medications. Both metoclopramide and domperidone received a strong recommendation for use with acute migraine attack medications where necessary.Conclusion:Our targeted review formulated recommendations for the available acute medications for migraine treatment according to the GRADE method. This should be helpful for practitioners who prescribe medications for acute migraine treatment.

Targeted Review: Medications for Acute Migraine Treatment

ABSTRACT:Objective:To assess the evidence base for drugs used for acute treatment of episodic migraine (headache on < 14 days a month) in Canada.Methods:A detailed search strategy was employed to find relevant published clinical trials of drugs used in Canada for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Primarily meta-analyses and systematic reviews were included. Where these were not available for a drug or were out of date, individual clinical trial reports were utilized. Only double-blind randomized clinical trials with placebo or active drug controls were included in the analysis. Recommendations and levels of evidence were graded according to the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, using a consensus group.Results:Eighteen acute migraine medications and two adjunctive medications were evaluated. Twelve acute medications received a strong recommendation with supporting high quality evidence for use in acute migraine therapy (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, ASA, ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, diclofenac potassium, and acetaminophen). Four acute medications received a weak recommendation for use with low or moderate quality evidence (dihydroergotamine, ergotamine, codeine-containing combination analgesics, and tramadol-containing combination analgesics). Three of these medications were NOT recommended for routine use (ergotamine, and codeine- and tramadol-containing medications), and strong recommendations were made to avoid use of butorphanol and butalbital-containing medications. Both metoclopramide and domperidone received a strong recommendation for use with acute migraine attack medications where necessary.Conclusion:Our targeted review formulated recommendations for the available acute medications for migraine treatment according to the GRADE method. This should be helpful for practitioners who prescribe medications for acute migraine treatment.

Diagnostic accuracy of CT angiography in acute gastrointestinal bleeding

The aim of the study was to carry out a systematic review determining the accuracy of CT angiography in the diagnosis of acute gastrointestinal bleeding. A search of published work in Medline and manual searching of reference lists of articles was conducted. Studies were included if they compared CT angiography to a reference standard of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, angiography or surgery in the diagnosis of acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Eight published studies evaluating 129 patients were included. Data were used to form 2 x 2 tables. Computed tomography angiography showed pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% confidence interval 78-92%) and specificity of 95% (95% confidence interval 76-100%), without showing significant heterogeneity (chi(2) = 3.5, P = 0.6) and (chi(2) = 5.4, P = 0.6), respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.93. Computed tomography angiography is accurate in the diagnosis of acute gastrointestinal bleeding and can show the precise location and aetiology of bleeding, thereby directing further management. Strong recommendations for use of CT cannot be made from this review because of the methodological limitations and further large prospective studies are needed to define the role of CT in acute gastrointestinal bleeding.

Oral graft‐versus‐host disease

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients receiving hematopoietic cell transplant. It is estimated that 40-70% of engrafted patients surviving the initial transplant eventually develop chronic GVHD (cGVHD), which can persist for months to years and require long-term management from multiple disciplines. This review describes the oral component of this transplant complication. The search related to GVHD patho-biology, salivary gland disease after hematopoietic cell transplant and treatments for oral GVHD encompassed literature from 1966 through 2008. Searches were limited to the MEDLINE/PubMed database and English language literature in peer-reviewed journals. Our understanding of the patho-biology of oral cGVHD is based on studies of other affected tissues. It is difficult to determine the prevalence and incidence of salivary gland disease after transplant because there is no universally accepted case definition. In general, clinical trials for treatment of oral cGVHD have been too small to make strong recommendations for use in clinical practice. Larger well-designed clinical studies are needed to understand the patho-biology of oral cGVHD and determine best treatments for this disease.