BackgroundTo determine the safety of Botox and its potential effect on alleviating radiation therapy (RT)‐induced sialadenitis in head and neck cancer patients.MethodsTwenty patients with stage III/IV head and neck cancer were randomized to receive Botox or saline injections into both submandibular glands (SMG). There were three visits: one before RT (V1); 1 week after RT (V2); and 6 weeks after RT (V3), each of which included saliva collection, a 24‐h dietary recall, and a quality‐of‐life survey.ResultsNo adverse events were observed. While the control group was much older, the Botox group more commonly underwent induction chemotherapy compared with controls. From V1 to V2, salivary flow decreased in both groups, but only in the control group from V1 to V3. CXCL‐1 (GRO), a neutrophil chemoattractant, was lower in the Botox group compared with the control group at V3.ConclusionBotox can be safely administered to the salivary glands prior to external beam radiation without observed complications or side‐effects. After an initial reduction in salivary flow following RT, the Botox group showed lack of further flow reduction compared with controls. The inflammatory marker CXCL 1, which was reduced in the in Botox group at V3, may be a candidate for further studies of radiation‐induced sialadenitis.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To review otology-related studies using the US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database to identify the opportunities and limitations of using MAUDE. Databases Reviewed: PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMBASE. Methods: All studies reporting otology-related adverse events extracted from MAUDE were included from June 20, 2002, to 2022. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, selected articles for exclusion, extracted data, and appraised studies. Critical appraisal was done according to the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for case series. Results: The search yielded 5,645 studies, of which 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. All eight studies were case series; three evaluated cochlear implants, two evaluated osseointegrated hearing implants, and one evaluated illuminated operating microscope use. Quality assessment revealed all studies to be of poor quality. The most common domains contributing to these ratings included unclear study population, lack of consecutive participants, comparability of participants, clear and consistent outcome measures, and appropriate statistical analysis. Conclusion: Otology studies using the MAUDE database are of poor quality. This was primarily due to MAUDE's structural limitations as a passive surveillance system using nonstandardized free-text reports. The quality of studies also suffered from inappropriate analysis of MAUDE data, given its design. The utility of MAUDE could be improved by implementing case report best practices and converting the free fields to allow controlled and adaptive responses wherever possible to help standardize adverse event reporting.