{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021540118470651588, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032310177705977385, 'mean_word_length': 5.341296928327645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Efficacy, Safety and Quality of Life of Oxybutynin versus Aluminum Chloride Hexahydrate in Treating Primary Palmar Hyperhidrosis

Background: Palmar hyperhidrosis is characterized by excessive sweating beyond the physiological needs of the patient's body and the most frequent form is primary or essential. Different treatments protocols have been proposed to control or decrease sweating. Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of oral oxybutynin versus topical aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) in treating primary palmar hyperhidrosis. Also, to assess quality of life (QOL) as a measure of improvement of hyperhidrosis state. Materials and Methods: Patients were randomized using the block randomization with sealed envelope method into two treatment groups; oral oxybutynin group and topical ACH group. Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) was used as a primary outcome measure to assess the efficacy of the drug in both groups. Clinical grading and the QOL were used as secondary outcome measures. The safety was evaluated by recording side effects in the follow-up visits. Results: HDSS, clinical grading and QOL score showed a statistically significant improvement in the oral oxybutynin groups. One week after stoppage of treatment, the symptoms recurred again in both groups with return of HDSS and QOL scores to pretreatment levels. The most common side effects were dry mouth (65.8%) and itching (65.0%) for oral oxybutynin group and topical ACH group; respectively. Conclusion: Treatment of primary palmar hyperhidrosis with oxybutynin is a good initial alternative for treatment given that it gives better results and much more improvement in QOL when compared to topical ACH. QOL questionnaire and clinical grading should also be considered as useful tools in the assessment of response to treatment.