Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T03:08:35.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Co-Phenylcaine Spray: can we improve the taste? A randomised, double-blind, crossover study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

S Bailey ,
B Panizza ,
P Cabot  and
B Wallwork
S Bailey*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
B Panizza
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
P Cabot
Affiliation:
School of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
B Wallwork
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Stuart John Bailey, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, Queensland 4104, Australia Fax: +61 731 762 427 E-mail: stuart.bailey00@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Co-Phenylcaine Forte is a nasal spray routinely prescribed by otolaryngologists in Australia. The taste of Co-Phenylcaine Forte is typically described as unpleasant. This study sought to improve the overall patient experience associated with Co-Phenylcaine Forte by generating a Co-Phenylcaine Forte formulation, referred to as Co-Phenylcaine Zest, which contains an added vanilla flavour and masking agent.

Methods:

Participants were randomised to receive two actuations of Co-Phenylcaine Forte in each nostril followed by two actuations of Co-Phenylcaine Zest, or vice versa. There was a 6–36-hour washout period between each treatment. After the administration of each spray, participants completed a questionnaire to rate various sensory attributes of each formulation on seven-point ordinal scales. Patients reported their overall formulation preference after receiving both treatments.

Results:

A total of 86 participants completed the trial. Seventy-four per cent of patients preferred Co-Phenylcaine Zest, 21 per cent preferred Co-Phenylcaine Forte and 5 per cent had no preference (p < 0.001). The satisfaction score associated with Co-Phenylcaine Zest was 1.22 points greater than with Co-Phenylcaine Forte (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

A novel formulation of Co-Phenylcaine Forte was created by adding a flavour and a masking agent; this formulation was preferred by most patients.

Keywords

AnestheticsLocalDecongestantsEndoscopyNasal Mucosa

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 2 , February 2018 , pp. 138 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Douglas, R, Hawke, L, Wormald, P. Topical anaesthesia before nasendoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of co-phenylcaine compared with lignocaine. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:33–5Google Scholar
2 Lennox, P, Hern, J, Birchall, M, Lund, V. Local anaesthesia in flexible nasendoscopy. A comparison between cocaine and co-phenylcaine. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110:540–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Smith, JC, Rockley, TJ. A comparison of cocaine and ‘co-phenylcaine’ local anaesthesia in flexible nasendoscopy. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:192–6Google Scholar
4 Georgalas, C, Sandhu, G, Frosh, A, Xenellis, J. Cophenylcaine spray vs. placebo in flexible nasendoscopy: a prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial. Int J Clin Pract 2005;59:130–3Google Scholar
5 Frosh, AC, Jayaraj, S, Porter, G, Almeyda, J. Is local anaesthesia actually beneficial in flexible fibreoptic nasendoscopy? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1998;23:259–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 BITREX® - Johnson Matthey Fine Chemicals. In: http://www.jmfinechemicals.com/bitrex/ [1 October 2016]Google Scholar
7 Conlin, A, McLean, L. Systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of local anesthetic, vasoconstrictive, and lubricating agents in flexible fibre-optic nasolaryngoscopy. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;37:240–9Google ScholarPubMed
8 Sharma, V, Chopra, H. Role of taste and taste masking of bitter drugs in pharmaceutical industries - an overview. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2010;2:14–18 Google Scholar