Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01690052

Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

21 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Kentucky Orofacial Pain Center College of Dentistry

Lexington, Kentucky, 40536, United States

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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.

Treatment and study plan

Cevimeline

Drug

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.

Pilocarpine

Drug

Cevimlenine Vs Pilocarpine, cross over design, 4 weeks, one week wash out

Primary outcomes

  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 outcomes

  1. Adverse Events

    Time frame: four weeks

    Adverse events related to the combination and order of study medication will be measured

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Kentucky

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Efficacy of Cevimeline vs. Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva

Important dates

Study start
2009
Primary completion
2010
Study completion
2010
First posted
Sep 21, 2012
Registry last updated
Jun 4, 2018

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.