Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Clin Oncol. Jan 10, 2019; 10(1): 1-13
Published online Jan 10, 2019. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v10.i1.1
Table 1 Pilocarpine and Cevimeline
AuthorType of studynInterventionXerostomia symptomsSalivary FunctionToxicity
Burlage et al[34], 2008Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial170PC during RT vs placeboLENT SOMA: no difference at 1 yr; Patient-reported xero: significantly lower scores in pilocarpine group at 12 mo only if mean parotid dose > 40 GyParotid flow rate complication probability (PFCP): at 1 yr, no diff between arms (except in subset of pts with > 40 Gy mean parotid dose-reduced loss of flow in pilocarpine group)2 patients didn't complete treatment, excessive sweating for PC and suspected AE for placebo pt; 1 G2 excessive sweating
Mateos et al[35], 2001Prospective non-randomized study49PC 5 mg TID during RT and for 1 yr vs no PCNo significant difference in visual analogue scale between groupsDynamic salivary scintigraphy: no SS differences between groupsNA
Valdez et al[36], 1993Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial9PC 5 mg four times daily for 3 mo during RT vs placeboSignificantly fewer subjective oral symptoms in pilocarpine group on survey during treatment; no difference at 1 yr (25% in both arms)Salivary flow rate (resting and stimulated): smaller losses in stim function in PC group at 3 mo (SS)none reported
Chambers et al[37], 2007Open-label prospective single-arm study255Cevimeline for 1 yr 45 mg TID orallyUsed mean global eval. score (0-3), at final eval. 59.2% improved, 37.3% no change, 3.5% worse compared with first visit (P < 0.0001 change from baseline to visit 8)NA20.4% G3 AE, most common was sweating; 7.1% severe AE, one possibly attributed to study drug (miscarriage)