Comparing the effectiveness and adverse effects of pilocarpine and cevimeline in patients with hyposalivation

• Published in: Oral diseases Vol. 25; no. 8; pp. 1937 - 1944
• Main Authors: Farag, Arwa M., Holliday, Craig, Cimmino, Joseph, Roomian, Tamar, Papas, Athena
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.11.2019
• Subjects: Acetylcholine receptors (muscarinic); Adult; Aged; cevimeline; Demography; dry mouth; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; hyposalivation; Middle Aged; Muscarinic Agonists - therapeutic use; Pilocarpine; Pilocarpine - administration & dosage; Pilocarpine - therapeutic use; Quinuclidines - administration & dosage; Quinuclidines - therapeutic use; Retrospective Studies; Salivary gland; sialagogues; Side effects; Thiophenes - administration & dosage; Thiophenes - therapeutic use; Time Factors; Xerostomia - drug therapy; United States > US; cevimeline; dry mouth; pilocarpine; sialagogues; hyposalivation
• ISSN: 1354-523X; 1601-0825; 1601-0825
• DOI: 10.1111/odi.13192

Objectives Pilocarpine (PILO) and cevimeline (CEV) are muscarinic acetylcholine receptor agonists that stimulate salivary gland function. The aim of this investigation was to retrospectively run a head‐to‐head comparison for their effectiveness and frequency of adverse effects in patients with hyposalivation. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients seen at the Oral Medicine Clinic at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine (TUSDM) and was prescribed PILO or CEV. Patients’ demographics, medical history/medication, stimulated salivary (SS), and unstimulated salivary (US) flow recorded at the initial visit and at 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐ups were collected. Changes in dosage/frequency, side effects, and drug discontinuation were also reported. Results A total of 110 patients’ charts were reviewed. The majority of subjects (91%) were females with an average age of 61. At 3‐month follow‐up, the use of CEV showed significant improvement in SS compared to PILO (p = .033) but not in US (p = .10). At 6‐month follow‐up, there was no significant difference in SS or US between the two groups (SS: p = .09; US: p = .71). The use of PILO was associated with a higher proportion of adverse effects compared to CEV (p = .04). The overall adherence rate was significantly higher in the CEV group (p = .0056). Conclusions The effectiveness of CEV and PILO is comparable. However, PILO seems to be associated with more reporting of side effects.