Biotène Versus HydraSmile for Radiation-Induced Xerostomia: Randomized Double-Blind Cross-Over Study

被引:1
|
作者
Harley, Randall J. [1 ]
Bowers, Eve [2 ]
Li, Jinhong [3 ]
Bisignani, Mikayla [4 ]
Nilsen, Marci L. [4 ,5 ]
Johnson, Jonas T. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Otorhinolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Philadelphia, PA USA
[2] Univ Miami, Miller Sch Med, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Miami, FL USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Grad Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[4] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Med, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[5] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Nursing, Dept Acute & Tertiary Care, 203 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
artificial saliva; head and neck cancer; radiation; xerostomia; BIOTENE; IMPACT; RADIOTHERAPY; TRIALS; HEAD;
D O I
10.1002/oto2.70038
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the effectiveness of 2 artificial saliva substitutes (Biot & egrave;ne vs HydraSmile) in the symptomatic management of radiation-induced xerostomia.Study DesignRandomized double-blind cross-over study.SettingSingle tertiary care academic institution.MethodsIncluded adult patients >= $<!--<semantics>-->\ge <!--</semantics>-->$6 months postradiotherapy (50-70 gy) for squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx. The primary endpoint was change in overall subjective xerostomia score from baseline, through use of HydraSmile versus Biot & egrave;ne. Scores were derived from a 100-point visual analog scale, with higher scores indicating better symptomatic control. Analysis of covariance model was used to regress the difference in after-treatment measurement between HydraSmile and Biot & egrave;ne, with respect to baseline differences.ResultsA total of 91 participants were included (mean age 63.0 years [SD 9.7]; 85.7% male; 97.8% White). Change in overall xerostomia score with respect to baseline was not significantly different between HydraSmile and Biot & egrave;ne (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.35 to 4.81). Compared to water alone, both HydraSmile (mean difference 7.45, 95% CI 3.61-11.29) and Biot & egrave;ne (mean difference 7.24, 95% CI 3.06-11.43) significantly improved overall xerostomia score. Forty (44%) patients reported a preference for Biot & egrave;ne, 46 (50.5%) preferred HydraSmile, and 5 (5.5%) had no preference. Patients who preferred Biot & egrave;ne did not significantly benefit from HydraSmile, whereas those who preferred HydraSmile did not significantly benefit from Biot & egrave;ne.ConclusionBiot & egrave;ne and HydraSmile significantly improved oral dryness among patients with radiation-induced xerostomia. While neither product demonstrated treatment superiority, individual product preference was predictive of greatest treatment benefit.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Safety and tolerability of virucidal hand rubs: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial
    A Conrad
    D Cosic
    C Schmoor
    M Dettenkofer
    BMC Proceedings, 5 (Suppl 6)
  • [32] Iqymune is effective as maintenance treatment for MMN: A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study versus Kiovig
    Leger, Jean-Marc
    Merkies, Ingemar Sergio Jose
    Nobile-Orazio, Eduardo
    Alfa-Cisse, Ousmane
    Ouaja, Rabye
    JOURNAL OF THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, 2018, 23 (04) : 336 - 337
  • [33] The ergogenic activity of cider vinegar: A randomized cross-over, double-blind, clinical trial
    Chiu, Hui-Fang
    Chiang, Michael
    Liao, Hui-Ju
    Shen, You-Cheng
    Venkatakrishnan, Kamesh
    Cheng, I-Shiung
    Wang, Chin-Kun
    SPORTS MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCE, 2020, 2 (01) : 38 - 43
  • [34] Double-Blind Cross-Over Trial of Gabapentin Versus Memantine for Treatment of Acquired Nystagmus
    Thurtell, Matthew J.
    Joshi, Anand C.
    Leone, Alice C.
    Tomsak, Robert L.
    Kosmorsky, Gregory S.
    Stahl, John S.
    Leigh, R. John
    ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY, 2009, 66 : S66 - S67
  • [35] Therapeutic effect of pirenzepine for clozapine-induced hypersalivation: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study
    Bai, YM
    Lin, CC
    Chen, JY
    Liu, WC
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, 2001, 21 (06) : 608 - 611
  • [36] L-Dopa-induced sedation:: a double-blind cross-over controlled study versus triazolam and placebo in healthy volunteers
    Andreu, N
    Chalé, JJ
    Senard, JM
    Thalamas, C
    Montastruc, JL
    Rascol, O
    CLINICAL NEUROPHARMACOLOGY, 1999, 22 (01) : 15 - 23
  • [37] Hyoscine for clozapine-induced hypersalivation: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over trial
    Segev, Aviv
    Evans, Anthony
    Hodsoll, John
    Whiskey, Eromona
    Sheriff, Rebecca S.
    Shergill, Sukhi
    MacCabe, James H.
    INTERNATIONAL CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, 2019, 34 (02) : 101 - 107
  • [38] DOUBLE-BLIND, DOUBLE CROSS-OVER TRIAL OF PRENYLAMINE IN ANGINA PECTORIS
    WINSOR, T
    BLEIFER, K
    COLE, S
    GOLDMAN, IR
    KARPMAN, H
    OBLATH, R
    STONE, S
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 1971, 82 (01) : 43 - &
  • [39] HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON OF UDENAFIL VERSUS AMLODIPINE IN THE TREATMENT OF SECONDARY RAYNAUD'S PHENOMENON: A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CROSS-OVER STUDY
    Park, J. K.
    Lee, E. Y.
    Yoon, M. J.
    Lee, W.
    Kim, Y. K.
    Park, C. S. -Y.
    Giles, J. T.
    Park, J. W.
    Shin, K. C.
    Lee, J. S.
    Song, Y. W.
    Lee, E. B.
    ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 2013, 72 : 61 - 62
  • [40] Frovatriptan versus almotriptan for acute treatment of menstrual migraine: analysis of a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian, comparative study
    Bartolini, Marco
    Giamberardino, Maria Adelaide
    Lisotto, Carlo
    Martelletti, Paolo
    Moscato, Davide
    Panascia, Biagio
    Savi, Lidia
    Pini, Luigi Alberto
    Sances, Grazia
    Santoro, Patrizia
    Zanchin, Giorgio
    Omboni, Stefano
    Ferrari, Michel D.
    Fierro, Brigida
    Brighina, Filippo
    JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN, 2012, 13 (05): : 401 - 406