This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sweeney, M. Articles by Aitchison, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sweeney, M. Articles by Aitchison, T. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Clinical trial of a mucin-containing oral spray for treatment of xerostomia in hospice patients

Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

J. Bagg

Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, Glasgow

WP Baxter

Accord Hospice, Paisley

TC Aitchison

University of Glasgow, Glasgow

Thirty-five hospice patients complaining of dry mouth entered a double-blind, single- phase placebo-controlled trial of a mucin-containing oral spray (Saliva Orthana) for the relief of xerostomia. The sprays were administered ad libitum for two weeks by the patients themselves, with nursing help as necessary. A detailed history and examination were undertaken, together with collection of microbiological specimens, at entry and after seven and 14 days of spray usage, respectively. Thirty-one patients were available for follow-up at seven days and 26 patients after 14 days. Relief of oral dryness during the day was reported by 9/15 patients on Saliva Orthana and 10/16 patients on placebo by day 7, with a similar degree of improvement maintained to day 14. The corresponding figures by day 7 for relief of dryness at night were 8/15 for Saliva Orthana and 8/16 for placebo. There were no statistically significant differences between those on active and those on placebo spray for any of the oral symptoms recorded. Neither spray had any major impact on the oral microflora. However, the majority of patients in both treatment groups wished to continue using a mouth spray at the end of their involvement in the trial. Whilst the data from this study provide no evidence for increased benefit of a mucin-containing spray over a mucin-free placebo among xerostomic hospice patients, it is clear that both sprays provided worthwhile symptomatic relief of oral dryness for many of the participants.

Key Words: hospice care • neoplasms • oral health • palliative treatment • saliva • saliva • artificial • xerostomia

Palliative Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 3, 225-232 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/026921639701100307


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A M Cook, I G Finlay, and R J Butler-Keating Recruiting into palliative care trials: lessons learnt from a feasibility study Palliative Medicine, March 1, 2002; 16(2): 163 - 165. [PDF]

				T. Nederfors Xerostomia and Hyposalivation Advances in Dental Research, December 1, 2000; 14(1): 48 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. N Davies A comparison of artificial saliva and chewing gum in the management of xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer Palliative Medicine, April 1, 2000; 14(3): 197 - 203. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Regnard, S. Allport, and L. Stephenson Mouth care and skin care in palliative medicine BMJ, October 10, 1998; 317(7164): 1013 - 1013. [Full Text]

				A. N Davies, C. Daniels, R. Pugh, and K. Sharma A comparison of artificial saliva and pilocarpine in the management of xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer Palliative Medicine, March 1, 1998; 12(2): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [PDF]