Help guide our efforts to modernize
Send us your comments by March 14, 2020. Menu

Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. Identifier: NCT01690052
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : September 21, 2012
Results First Posted : August 6, 2014
Last Update Posted : June 4, 2018
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Joel Thompson, PhD, University of Kentucky

Brief Summary:
The main objectives were: 1) To determine the efficacy of both cevimeline and pilocarpine in the secretion of saliva in patients with xerostomia, and 2) To compare the side-effects between the treatment for xerostomia with cevimeline and with pilocarpine.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Dry Mouth Drug: Cevimeline Drug: Pilocarpine Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

Pilocarpine is a cholinergic agonist with predominant muscarinic action.As such, it acts at muscarinic-cholinergic receptors found throughout the body and promotes fluid secretion. Due to this, one of the main side-effects of pilocarpine is an increased amount of sweating. Thus, not only are the salivary glands stimulated, but all of the body's exocrine glands' production is heightened. On the other hand, cevimeline is a drug with a high affinity for specific muscarinic receptors (M3) located on lachrymal and salivary gland epithelium. At least in theory, cevimeline will produce less side effects compared with pilocarpine because of the higher affinity for the muscarinic receptors located in the salivary glands. A limited number of human clinical trials in the efficacy of cevimeline and pilocarpine to increase the production of saliva and the side effects have been performed with no conclusive results.

The main purposes of this study were to determine the efficacy of cevimeline and pilocarpine in the secretion of saliva in patients with xerostomia, and to compare the side-effects between these two medications.

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 15 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment
Masking: Double (Participant, Investigator)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: Efficacy of Cevimeline vs. Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva
Study Start Date : January 2009
Actual Primary Completion Date : June 2010
Actual Study Completion Date : July 2010

Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine

MedlinePlus related topics: Dry Mouth

Arm Intervention/treatment
Active Comparator: Cevimeline
Cevimeline vs Pilocarpine
Drug: Cevimeline
Cevimlenine Vs Pilocarpine, cross over design. Two sequences were evaluated "cevimeline first, then pilocarpine" and "pilocarpine first, then cevimeline". Each sequence was evaluated for 4 weeks with one week "washout" period in between both sequences. 15 patients were randomly assigned to a specific sequence by a research pharmacist independent from the study authors. The patients received 30mg of cevimeline three times a day and pilocarpine 5mg three times a day.

Active Comparator: Pilocarpine
Pilocarpine vs. Cevimeline
Drug: Pilocarpine
Cevimlenine Vs Pilocarpine, cross over design, 4 weeks, one week wash out

Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Change From Baseline in Saliva Production in ml. [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ]

    The primary outcome measure was the change of stimulated and non-stimulated saliva in ml from the baseline record.

    At each appointment (weekly), participants will provide 2 saliva samples to measure their current salivary output. The first measurement will be obtained by having the patient spit as much as he or she could into a cup for five minutes. The amount of saliva in ml will be recorded.

    The second measurement will be obtained in a similar manner with the addition of having the patient chew on a block of unflavored wax. Patients will complete weekly questionnaires to help determine which side-effects they experience as they take the medications.

Other Outcome Measures:
  1. Adverse Events [ Time Frame: four weeks ]
    Adverse events related to the combination and order of study medication will be measured

Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.

Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   21 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Potential candidates with the diagnosis of moderate-severe xerostomia were identified from the Oral Medicine Clinic at the University Of Kentucky College Of Dentistry, or self referrals in response to IRB approved study announcements. Enrollment required no clinical evidence of oral lesions, subjective perception of dry mouth and less than 2 mL of saliva collected in 5 minutes without stimulation. Exclusion criteria included patients with non controlled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), depression, asthma, cardiac arrhythmias, glaucoma, and the current use of any medication with interactions with cevimeline and pilocarpine.

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its identifier (NCT number): NCT01690052

Layout table for location information
United States, Kentucky
University of Kentucky Orofacial Pain Center College of Dentistry
Lexington, Kentucky, United States, 40536
Sponsors and Collaborators
University of Kentucky
Layout table for investigator information
Principal Investigator: Joel Thompson, PhD University of Kentucky

Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Joel Thompson, PhD, PRS administrator, University of Kentucky Identifier: NCT01690052    
Other Study ID Numbers: 9999
First Posted: September 21, 2012    Key Record Dates
Results First Posted: August 6, 2014
Last Update Posted: June 4, 2018
Last Verified: May 2018
Keywords provided by Joel Thompson, PhD, University of Kentucky:
dry mouth
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Layout table for MeSH terms
Mouth Diseases
Salivary Gland Diseases
Stomatognathic Diseases
Autonomic Agents
Peripheral Nervous System Agents
Physiological Effects of Drugs
Muscarinic Agonists
Cholinergic Agonists
Cholinergic Agents
Neurotransmitter Agents
Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action