Testing pilocarpine drops for dry mouth in advanced cancer using n-of-1 trials: A feasibility study

Interventional Prospective Studies on Xerostomia in Patients Undergoing Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Scoping Review

Patients undergoing palliative care often develop debilitating oral conditions, including xerostomia. These conditions may significantly impact patients' quality of life. Despite the high prevalence and adverse impact of xerostomia, effective management strategies remain unclear. This scoping review was performed to elucidate effective interventions for xerostomia in patients undergoing palliative and end-of-life care. A comprehensive search strategy was employed to identify relevant studies up to August 2023. Full-text primary articles focusing on xerostomia in patients receiving palliative care were included in the review. Eleven articles were selected for analysis, and data were extracted by six reviewers. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Among the 11 studies, interventions ranged from oral care to saliva substitutes and methods to stimulate saliva secretion. The primary method of assessing xerostomia was the performance of subjective evaluations using visual analog scale scores or numerical rating scale scores. Various interventions including oral care regimens, topical treatments, and mixed efficacy outcomes were reported. Notably, only one study directly measured the saliva volume, highlighting a reliance on subjective endpoints in most studies. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the most effective intervention, oral care was a preferred option for managing xerostomia in patients undergoing palliative care. Additionally, adjunctive treatments such as ice cubes, saline, and moisturizers showed promise but require further investigation. Objective measures should be incorporated into future intervention trials to complement subjective assessments and provide a comprehensive evaluation of xerostomia management strategies in this patient population.

Relieving Perception of Thirst and Xerostomia in Patients with Palliative and End-of-life Care Needs: A Rapid Review

CONTEXT

Thirst and dry mouth are interlinked symptoms that frequently cause significant distress for patients with life-limiting conditions.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this rapid review was to identify and synthesize effective interventions that relieve perceptions of thirst and dry mouth of patients with palliative care and end-of-life care needs.

METHODS

Eligible studies were undertaken in clinical settings, with patients experiencing thirst-related distress and/or dry mouth. This review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted following aspects of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. The main outcomes of interest were: 1) efficacy of thirst and dry mouth interventions for patient, and 2) patient, caregiver, and staff acceptability and satisfaction of the interventions. Scientific journal articles were retrieved through searches in electronic databases of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and AgeLine (EBSCO).

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included for analysis and synthesis of the results. Most studies either focused on a dry mouth intervention or reported dry mouth outcomes within a broader thirst intervention (n = 9/11 studies). Standard oral care was the common intervention type (n = 5/11). All but one dry mouth intervention reported statistical improvement in outcomes of interest. All studies that reported on thirst were conducted in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) setting (n = 4/4). No studies specifically addressed thirst in patients in specialist palliative care settings.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from this review suggests that thirst interventions established within the ICU setting may prove effective for treatment of terminally ill patients receiving specialist palliative care.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Development of a Core Outcome Set for Dry Mouth: A Systematic Review of Outcome Domains for Xerostomia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify all outcome domains used in clinical studies of xerostomia, that is, subjective sensation of dry mouth. This study is part of the extended project "World Workshop on Oral Medicine Outcomes Initiative for the Direction of Research" to develop a core outcome set for dry mouth.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All clinical and observational studies that assessed xerostomia in human participants from 2001 to 2021 were included. Information on outcome domains was extracted and mapped to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Corresponding outcome measures were summarized.

RESULTS

From a total of 34,922 records retrieved, 688 articles involving 122,151 persons with xerostomia were included. There were 16 unique outcome domains and 166 outcome measures extracted. None of these domains or measures were consistently used across all the studies. The severity of xerostomia and physical functioning were the 2 most frequently assessed domains.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable heterogeneity in outcome domains and measures reported in clinical studies of xerostomia. This highlights the need for harmonization of dry mouth assessment to enhance comparability across studies and facilitate the synthesis of robust evidence for managing patients with xerostomia.

Comparison of the 1 and 2% pilocarpine mouthwash in a xerostomic population: a randomized clinical trial

AIMS & BACKGROUND

Pilocarpine is an accepted treatment for xerostomia, but limited research has been conducted on the oral, topical form. The present study aimed to compare the effects of 1 and 2% pilocarpine mouthwash on xerostomic participants.

METHODS

In this double-blind clinical trial study, 48 subjects with xerostomia were randomly divided into three groups to measure the effects of 1 and 2% pilocarpine and placebo mouthwashes on saliva levels. The amount of saliva in the 1st and 14th days was measured at 0, 45, 60, and 75 mins, while participants used their mouthwash three times a day for 14 days. On the 1st and 14th days, they filled out the information forms on xerostomia and the medicine's side effects before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

On the 1st day, the mean salivary flow at 45, 60, and 75 mins in the 2 and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash were significantly higher than in the placebo mouthwash group (p < 0.05). On the 14th day, the mean salivary flow time at 45 mins in the 2% pilocarpine mouthwash group was significantly higher than in the placebo mouthwash group (p = 0.007). Furthermore, the mean salivary flow at 60 and 75 mins in the 2% (p < 0.001) and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash (p = 0.028) was significantly higher than in the placebo group. Moreover, the salivary flow in the 2% pilocarpine mouthwash group was significantly higher than the 1% pilocarpine mouthwash (p < 0.05) during these two times. No side effects were observed in any of the subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that 5 ml of 2 and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash for 2 weeks increased salivary flow in xerostomic participants compared to placebo without any side effects.

Oral symptom assessment tools in patients with advanced cancer: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Oral symptoms are common in patients with advanced cancer. The aim of this scoping review was to identify oral symptom assessment tools that have been specifically utilised in patients with "advanced cancer".

METHODS

The review was conducted/reported according to international guidelines for undertaking scoping reviews. PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for articles involving adult patients with advanced cancer, which involved assessment of ≥ 2 oral symptoms, and which involved patients with > 1 type of cancer.

RESULTS

The review identified four validated symptom assessment scales, including one cancer-specific quality of life scale (EORTC QLQ OH-15), one generic tool for assessing the "social impact" of specific oral problems (OHIP), one cancer-specific generic symptom assessment scale (MSAS), and one cancer-specific oral symptom assessment scale (OSAS).

CONCLUSION

Symptom assessment tools can facilitate good symptom control in clinical practice, and are an integral component of clinical research. The review identified four validated symptom assessment scales that could be utilised to assess oral symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

MASCC/ISOO expert opinion on the management of oral problems in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

The Palliative Care Study Group in conjunction with the Oral Care Study Group of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) formed a sub-group to develop evidence-based guidance on the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

This guidance was developed in accordance with the MASCC Guidelines Policy. A search strategy for Medline was developed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were explored for relevant reviews and trials, respectively. Guidance was categorised by the level of evidence, and "category of guideline" (i.e., "recommendation", "suggestion" or "no guideline possible").

RESULTS

Twelve generic suggestions (level of evidence - 5), three problem-specific recommendations and 14 problem-specific suggestions were generated. The generic suggestions relate to oral hygiene measures, assessment of problems, principles of management, re-assessment of problems and the role of dental/oral medicine professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This guidance provides a framework for the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer, although every patient requires individualised management.

Topical pilocarpine for xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a pilocarpine spray as a treatment for xerostomia in patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC).

METHODS

This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover clinical trial of patients complaining of dry mouth after RT for HNC. Forty patients were randomly assigned to either placebo or pilocarpine (1.54%) spray and instructed to use three times a day for 3 months. After 1-month washout period, patients were crossed over to receive placebo or pilocarpine. The assessments were salivary flow (Stimulated Whole Saliva Flow - SWSF), xerostomia (Xerostomia Inventory - XI), and quality of life (QoL/Oral Health Impact Profile - OHIP-14), assessed at baseline, 1 hr (only SWSF), and at 1, 2, and 3 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Posttreatment SWFS was not statistically different between pilocarpine and placebo regardless of the treatment sequence (paired T test; p > .05), except for the SWFS rates at 2 months after therapy. When comparing pilocarpine with placebo in the time points, there was no significant difference (p > .05) for QoL or XI. Significant differences in improvement in QoL and xerostomia experience appeared along time for pilocarpine group.

CONCLUSION

The topical application of pilocarpine spray tested was similar to placebo on SWSF assessments in patients treated with RT for HNC.

Palliative care assessment of dry mouth: what matters most to patients with advanced disease?

PURPOSE

Dry mouth is a highly prevalent and significant symptom in patients with advanced progressive diseases. It is a poorly understood area of research, and currently, there is no standardised outcome measure or assessment tool for dry mouth.

METHODS

To assess responses to self-reported dry mouth questions, the impact of dry mouth, methods used to reduce symptoms and relevance of the questionnaire. A cross-sectional multisite study of 135 patients with advanced progressive disease experiencing dry mouth. Participants were located in the inpatient, day care, outpatient or community setting.

RESULTS

The majority (84.4%) of patients rated their dry mouth as moderate or severe using the verbal rating scale (VRS). Seventy-five percent (74.7%) had a numeric rating scale (NRS) score of 6 or more for dry mouth severity. Patients reported that dry mouth interfered most with talking and was the most important function to assess (median score 6 out of 10) followed by eating (median 5) and taste (median 5). Taking sips of drink was the most common and most effective self-management strategy. Over half of patients (54.6%) also reported impact on swallow and sleep and associated dryness of lips, throat and nasal passages.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the severity of dry mouth in advanced disease. Important factors when assessing patients with dry mouth should include the functional impact on day-to-day activities including talking, dysphagia and sleep. Simple considerations for patients include provision of drinks and reviewing medications. This study could be used to develop a standardised assessment tool for dry mouth to use in clinical practice.