|
The first step in the treatment of drug-induced xerostomia is to obtain an accurate and complete
accounting of the patient's current prescription and non-prescription drug intake: the "drug-log".
It should include the name of each drug, the dose, the intake schedule, the prescribing doctor's
name and the date the prescription was issued. In some cases, these facts may readily be obtained
by asking the patient to provide such a list. Where this is difficult or not possible, it may be
necessary to ask them to bring all of their drugs to the office or clinic. Once this list is prepared,
this portal can readily be used to identify and categorize those drugs which may be xerogenic.
The desiccation which occurs as a result of the intake of xerogenic drugs is generally
the result of neural effects, not to irreversible destruction of the parenchyma of the
salivary glands. Removal of the offending drugs almost invariably eliminates or diminishes
the oral dryness. Moreover, since salivary glands are usually able, when stimulated,
to produce some saliva, it may be possible to improve the patient's sensation of dryness
even in the presence of xerogenic drugs.
A number of techniques may be tried to modify the patient's intake of xerogenic drugs.
Included among these are: (1) the elimination or reduction of select drugs, (2) a
change in the manner in which they are taken and (3) the substitution of one drug
for another with less noxious effects. Such changes should generally be conducted
in consort with the health providers who prescribed the original medications.
The Elimination or Reduction of Select Drugs
It is common, in our society, for a patient to have many doctors.
Many doctors usually means many “doctor-prescribed” drugs. Since
the feeling of oral dryness is not only related to the intake of
xerogenic medications but also to the number of drugs taken per day,
it is important to thoroughly investigate the patient’s drug-log.
Sometimes, doctors are unaware of the precise mix of drugs that the
patient consumes. In such cases, they should be provided with a copy
of the log and a listing of those medications that are xerogenic. Moreover,
they should be told that the patient is truly troubled by oral dryness and
that there is a need to reduce or modify her or his drug intake. It is not
uncommon that, when confronted with such facts, the physician, dentist or
other health worker may recognize that the intake of one or another drug
may no longer be necessary or that it may be reduced in amount.
Drugs are taken for many reasons. For some, they are prescribed for
life-threatening or life-prolonging situations. In such cases, it may be
difficult, if not impossible, to delete the offending medications. For
others, however, they are taken for conditions in which they are of
equivocal value. In these cases, one can readily advise that they be
eliminated or altered. Frequently, patients take over-the-counter
(OTC) medications, many of which are xerogenic. Doctors should be
aware of this fact and patients should be counselled to modify their
intake of these drugs.
Modification of the Drug-Intake Schedule
In general, the intensity of oral dryness is a direct function
of the level of the offending drugs in the blood; the higher the concentration, the more severe the desiccation. A change in the way that drugs are taken
may reduce the patient’s feeling of oral dryness. For some, the mere
splitting of the prescribed dose into smaller, more frequently taken
doses, is helpful. For others, this may not be enough.
Patients generally know when they feel most dry. Relief
may occasionally be obtained by modifying the drug intake
schedule so that the dryness-inducing drug’s peak blood level
does not coincide with the times at which the patient feels most dry.
Drug Substitution
Drugs vary in their capacity to induce oral dryness.
Given the huge numbers of drugs on the market, it seems reasonable to
suggest that if a patient complains that the taking of a particular
drug makes their mouth feel dry, one should substitute it with another,
less-drying one. However, this is easier said than done, since only few
studies exist which directly compare the relative desiccatory potential
of one drug to another. Still, some general deductions can be made and
a few examples of beneficial “drug substitution” can be offered. Given
the state of our knowledge, drug substitutions must often be done empirically.
The Antidepressants
The tricyclic drugs were prominent among the first generation of medications used to treat depression.
These drugs were effective because they enhanced serotoninergic and/or noradrenergic mechanisms.
Unfortunately, they also blocked histaminic, cholinergic and alpha-1-adrenergic receptor sites.
This action brought about a number of unwanted side effects; especially, dry mouth. Indeed,
it is not uncommon for the most xerogenic of these agents to cause desiccation in greater than
40% of the patients. The table below lists the tricyclics in order of their antimuscarinic
potential 2,3,4. Since xerosotomia is the consequence of antimuscarinic activity, it is
tempting to believe that the incidence of oral dryness also follows this order. Unfortunately,
there is no direct evidence to support this belief. Still, if the necessity arises to substitute
one tricyclic drug for another, less xerogenic one, it seems reasonable to give credence to the
cited antimuscarinic ordering of these drugs (Figure 3).
| [ FIGURE 3 ] The Tricyclic Antidepressants: listed in order of their antimuscarinic potential |
| amitriptyline > clomipramine = amoxapine = protriptyline > doxepin = imipramine = trimipramine = nortriptyline > desipramine |
The next generation of antidepressants are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
(SSRI's). Included among these are citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine,
and sertraline. As a class, these drugs are less anticholinergic than the tricyclics5.
It has been reported that the incidence of oral dryness with the SSRI's is 21%; with
the tricyclics, 55%6. Few tests have directly compared the incidence of dryness among
drugs between these groups. But those that have been done, support these statements.
It has been shown, for example, that the frequency of xerostomia with paroxetine was
25%; with imipramine, 63%7 and sertraline is associated with a lower frequency of dry
mouth than amitritpyline8.
Newer, multiple-receptor antidepressants are also less anticholinergic than the
tricyclic drugs; nefazadone and mirtazapine are examples of these drugs9. In one "direct
comparison" study, 39% of a group of patients given amitriptyline developed xerostomia;
for those given nefazadone, it was 11%10. Another study demonstrated that mirtazapine was
less xerogenic than amitriptyline11. Recent tests demonstrated that the incidence of dry
mouth in patients given reboxitine, a selective nor-adrenaline reuptake inhibitor, was 22%12.
The data thus suggest that the "newer" antidepressants are less xerogenic than the older,
tricyclic, drugs. If, therefore, in the treatment of a patient with depression, dry mouth
is a severe side effect, these newer medications may be tried.
The Antipsychotics
Anticholinergic effects, including dry mouth, are also among the side-effects induced by the
antipsychotic drugs. The reported relative anticholinergic potentials of some of these agents
are shown below13 (Figure 4).
| [ FIGURE 4 ] Relative Anticholinergic Potencies of Select Antipsychotic Drugs |
|
+++ Promazine, triflupromazine, mesoridazine, thioridazine, clozapine, olanzapine
|
|
++ Chlorpromazine, pimozide
|
|
+ Fluphenazine, perphenazine, prochlorperazine, trifluoperazine, thiothixene, haloperidol, multimode, loxapine.
|
|
0 Quetiapine, risperidone
|
| (+++ = strong; ++ = moderate; + = weak; 0 = none)
|
As with the tricyclics, there is no evidence to support the belief
that the incidence of oral dryness is in accord with this categorization.
For example, clozapine and olanzapine, drugs which are listed in the “+++”
category, respectively induced 6 and 7% xerostomia in test patients. On the
other hand, 7% of a group of patients who took quetiapine complained of oral
dryness; yet this drug is listed in the “0" group.
The Antihistaminics
Dry mouth is also a common complaint among patients who take antihistamines.
The anticholinergic properties of those that are categorized as “First Generation”
drugs are, in general, greater than those that are classified as “Second Generation”
medications. But again, there is little information that directly compares the
relative capacity of these agents to induce dry mouth.
| [ FIGURE 5 ] The Anticholinergic Effects of the Antihistaminic Drugs |
| +++ = HIGH; ++ = MODERATE; + = LOW; ± = LOW or NONE |
| First Generation Antihistaminic Drugs |
| +++ |
Clemastine, Diphenhydramine, Promethazine |
| ++ |
Azatadine, Brompheniramine, Chlorpheniramine, Cyproheptadine, Dexchlopheniramine, Hydroxyzine, Phenindamine |
| _ |
Tripelennamine |
| Second Generation Antihistaminic Drugs |
| ± |
Astemizole, Azelastine, Cetirizine, Fexofenadine, Loratadine |
| The incidences of dry mouth for astemizole = 5.2%; cetirizine = 5%; loaratidine = 3%. |
Specific Examples of Drug Substitution with Other Medications:
Anticholinergics / Antispasmodics - Tolterodine tartrate,
a relatively new urinary anticholinergic and antispasmodic
drug has been found to be less-drying than oxybutynin chloride16,17
The extended release form of oxybutynin has been shown to exert a
less xerogenic effect than the immediate release form of the drug18.
Antiemetics - (a) Nabilone causes more dry mouth than prochlorperazine19
.(b) More dry mouth was associated with an antiemetic regimen composed
of hyoscine, clemastine, lorazepam, dexamethasone and a high dose of
metoclopromide than with a regimen comprised of haloperidol, lorazepam,
dexamethazone and low doses of metoclopromide20.
Analgesic - Dry mouth is less severe in patients receiving controlled
release oxycodone than immediate release oxycodone21.
Antiparkinson drugs - The antiparkinson anticholinergic drugs like
benztropine, biperiden, procyclidine and trihexphenidyl are alleged to
be more xerogenic than the dopaminergic agents. In single tests conduced
on individual agents, 30-50% of the patients who used trihexphenidyl drugs
complained of dry mouth. The rate of appearance of dry mouth among those using
dopaminergic drugs was less: pramipexole, 7%; rapinirole and tolcapone, 5% to 6%;
pergolide, 3.7% selegiline, 3%22.
The findings clearly show that the knowledge about the relative effects
of drugs to induce dry mouth is limited. A few generalizations, as shown,
can be made. But, in general, substitution from a drug to one of lesser
xerogenic capacity has to be done by trial and error. For those who
regard xerostomia as a trivial complaint, such an effort would seem
massive. But it should be recognized that for many patients, dry mouth
is, indeed, a chronic, most troubling, matter.
When drug-therapies are not enough
There are times when it is impossible to determine or eliminate the cause
of the patient’s oral dryness, and when the drug modifications suggested
in this report do not, or only minimally, help. Mindful that drugs generally
do not destroy the functional capacity of the salivary system, attempts
should next be made to stimulate the patient’s saliva. Finally, if this
does not help or, in addition to the use of sialogogues, one should seek
to “moisturize” the patient’s oral mucosa. Saliva can be stimulated by
mechanical (masticatory), chemical, electronic and pharmacologic methods.
These, along with oral moisturizers and salivary substitutes are shown in Table 6.
| [ TABLE 6 ] Sialogogues / Oral Moisturizers / Salivary Substitutes |
|
Type of Product
|
Brand Names
|
Select Characteristics
|
Distributor
|
|
1.Mechanical (Masticatory) Stimulants
|
|
FOODS which require mastication (apples, carrots, celery, hard breads and rolls, meats, etc)
|
|
Sugarless Gums
|
|
Sweeteners |
|
| Biotene |
Xylitol |
Laclede Professional Products |
| Eclipse |
maltitol, sorbitol,mannitol, aspartame, acesulfame K
Certified by the American Dental Association to “prevent cavities, reduce plaque and strengthen teeth.” |
Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co. |
| Extra |
sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, acesulfame K and aspartamel
Certified by the American Dental Association to “prevent cavities, reduce plaque and strengthen teeth.” |
Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co. |
| Orbit |
Sorbitol, mannnitol, xylitol, aspartame, acesulfame K
Certified by the American Dental Association to “prevent cavities, reduce plaque and strengthen teeth.” |
Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co. |
| Orbit White |
Maltitol, sorbitol, mannitol,aspartame, acesulfame K |
Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co. |
| Orbit Ice White |
sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol syrup, aspartame, acesulfame K |
Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co. |
| Airwaves |
Isomalt,sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol syrup (in Honey Lemon only), aspartame, acesulfame K |
Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co. |
| Trident |
sorbitol, mannitol, acesulfame, aspartame |
Warner-Lambert |
| Xylifresh |
xylitol |
Leaf Specialty Products |
|
Sugarless Tablet
|
Salix *
|
|
Scandinavian Natural Products
|
* contains citric acid
| Solutions |
Mouth-Kote |
Mucopolysaccaharide Sol., contains citric acid |
Parnell Pharmaceuticals |
| Optimoist |
Contains citric acid |
Colgate-Palmolive, Co. |
|
Electrical Stimulation
|
Salitron   Prescription required
|
Intra-oral electronic stimulator of saliva
|
Biosonics, Inc.
|
|
4. Pharmacologic Stimulant
|
| Drugs |
“Salagen” (Pilocarpine HCl); Prescription required |
Cholinergic agonist |
MGI Pharma, Inc. |
| “Evoxac” (Cevimeline HCl); Prescription required |
Cholinergic agonist |
Daiichi Parmaceutical Co. Ltd. |
|
5. Oral Moisturizers / Salivary Substitutes
|
| Solutions |
WATER |
***** |
***** |
| Salivart |
Contain carboxymethyl cellulose and hydroxyethyl cellulose |
Xenex Laboratories, Inc. |
| Oralube |
| Xero-Lube |
Colgate Hoyt/Gel-Kam |
| Plax |
Water-glycerin agent |
Pfizer Inc. |
|
Gel
|
Oral Balance
|
Glycerate polymer
|
Laclede Professional Products
|
TEXT REFERENCES:
1.
Drug Facts and Comparisons, On Line, 2001
2. Goodman and Gilman, 6th Edition, 1980
3. Richelson and Diventz-Romero, 1977
4. Snyder and Yamamura, 1977
5. Drug Facts and Comparisons, 2001, pg. 902/3
6. Centre for Evidence Based Mental Health, U.K., 2001
7. Cohn JB et al, Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 26(2):185-189, 1990
8. Drug Facts and Comparisons, 2001, pg. 902
9. Ansseau M et al, Psychopharmacology 115 (1-2): 254-60, 1994
10. Smith WT et al, Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 26 (2): 191-196, 1990).
11. Versiani M Int’l. J. of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 4(3):210-208, 2000
12. Adapted from Drug Facts & Comparisons, 55th Edition, 2001, pg 945/6
13. Drug Facts & Comparisons, 55th Edition, 2001, pg 950
14. Drug Facts and Comparisons, 55th Edition, 2001, pg 711
15. Abrams P et al, Brit J Urology, 81(6):801-810, 1998
16. Drutz HP et al, Intl Urogynecology J & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 10(5):238-239, 1999
17. Goldenberg MM, Clinical Therapeutics 21(4):634-642, 1999
18. Herman TS et al, New England J Med, 300(23):1295-1297, 1979
19. Findlay M et al, European J of Cancer, 29A(3):309-315, 1993
20. Robbins L, Headache Quarterly, 10(4):305-309, 1999
21. Drug Facts and Comparisons, 55th Edition, 2001, pp 1113-1136
Back to Top
|