4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Cevimeline for the treatment of postirradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.01.019

Keywords

cevimeline; postirradiation xerostomia; head-and-neck cancer; dry mouth; saliva

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To study the efficacy and safety of cevimeline in two double-blind trials (Studies 003 and 004) enrolling patients with head and neck cancer in whom xerostomia developed after radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive cevimeline, 30 mg three times daily, or placebo for 12 weeks, with the possibility of dose escalation to 45 mg three times daily at 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the patient's final global evaluation of oral dryness; change in unstimulated salivary flow was a secondary endpoint. Results: Five hundred seventy subjects (284 in Study 003 and 286 in Study 004) were randomized. Significantly more cevimeline-treated subjects than placebo recipients (47.4 % vs. 33.3 %, p = 0.0162) in Study 003 reported improvement in dry mouth in the final global evaluation of oral dryness. No significant difference between groups in the final global evaluation was seen in Study 004, in which a high placebo response rate of 47.6% was observed. In both studies, cevimeline-treated subjects bad significantly greater increases in the objective measure of unstimulated salivary flow than placebo recipients (p = 0.0093 (Study 003] and p = 0.0215 [Study 0041), whereas no significant differences in stimulated salivary flow were observed. The most frequent adverse event was increased sweating. Conclusion: Cevimeline was well tolerated by patients with xerostomia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, and oral administration of 30-45 mg of cevimeline three times daily increased unstimulated salivary flow. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available