Topical Clonazepam Solution for the Management of Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Retrospective Study.

AIMS: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two concentrations of topical clonazepam solution in improving symptoms of burning mouth syndrome (BMS). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients diagnosed with BMS and managed with topical clonazepam solution between 2008 and 2015. A 0.5-mg/mL solution was prescribed until 2012, when this was changed to a 0.1 mg/mL solution. Patients were instructed to swish with 5 mL for 5 minutes and spit two to four times daily. The efficacies of the two concentrations were compared using patient-reported outcome measures at the first follow-up, including the reported percentage of improvement in burning symptoms and the change in burning severity from baseline ranked on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Response to treatment was compared between the two concentrations using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: A total of 57 subjects were included, 32 in the 0.1-mg/mL cohort and 25 in the 0.5-mg/mL cohort, and evaluated at a median follow-up of 7 weeks. The median overall percentage improvement was 32.5% in the 0.1-mg/mL cohort and 75% in the 0.5-mg/mL cohort. The median reduction in NRS score was 0.5 points in the 0.1-mg/mL cohort and 6 points in the 0.5-mg/mL cohort. The use of either outcome measure revealed that the response to treatment with the 0.5-mg/mL solution was superior to that of the 0.1 mg/mL solution (P < .01). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that a 0.5-mg/mL topical clonazepam solution is effective in the management of BMS. Future randomized clinical trials are warranted.

Safety and tolerability of topical clonazepam solution for management of oral dysesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine the absolute and relative safety of treatment with 2 concentrations of topical clonazepam solution (0.1 mg/mL, 0.5 mg/mL) for management of oral dysesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: The study was a retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with oral dysesthesia and managed with topical clonazepam solution (swish and spit) between 2008 and 2015. The relative safety of the 2 concentrations was evaluated in terms of occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and occurrence of change to treatment plan secondary to ADRs. RESULTS: For the study, 162 patients were included-84 patients in the 0.1 mg/mL cohort and 78 in the 0.5 mg/mL cohort, who were evaluated for a median follow-up period of 6 weeks. Thirty-eight (23%) patients developed ADRs. The most frequently reported ADR was sedation (62% of ADRs), followed by altered mental status and dizziness (7% each). Dose adjustments were required in 9 patients (6%) and treatment discontinuation in 13 (8%). ADRs were more frequently reported in the 0.5 mg/mL cohort, but no significant difference was found in terms of occurrence of ADRs, change to treatment plan secondary to ADRs, or types of ADRs (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with topical clonazepam solution in either 0.5 mg/mL or 0.1 mg/mL concentration appears to be safe and well-tolerated. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Oral Medicine referrals at a hospital-based practice in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the outpatient oral medicine (OM) clinic at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), with particular emphasis on patient demographic characteristics and referral patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case record review of all initial consultations with OM experts at BWH from 2008 to 2010 was conducted. Data included demographic information, type of medical insurance, reason for referral, referring doctor's specialty, and distance between the patient's home and the referring doctor as well as BWH, number of prior doctors seen for the presenting problem (per patient report), tests ordered at the consultation visit, and clinical diagnoses. RESULTS: There were 1043 new outpatient consultation visits. Patients lived a median distance of 9.5 miles from the referring doctor and 18.9 miles from BWH and saw a median of one doctor (range 0-9) before consultation. Two thirds of patients were referred by physicians. The most common diagnoses included immune-mediated mucosal conditions (27.2%), orofacial pain disorders (25.1%), benign tumors or neoplasms (10.3%), and dysplasia and cancerous conditions (7.6%). Biopsy was the most frequent test performed at consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with oral conditions often see more than one doctor, before being referred to an OM expert and typically travel twice the distance to the expert compared with that between their home and the referring doctor. Equal efforts should be made to increase awareness of the importance of the specialty of OM among dentists, physicians, and the public.