search
Back to results

Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva

Primary Purpose

Dry Mouth

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Cevimeline
Pilocarpine
Sponsored by
University of Kentucky
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Dry Mouth focused on measuring dry mouth

Eligibility Criteria

21 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers
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.

Sites / Locations

  • University of Kentucky Orofacial Pain Center College of Dentistry

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Cevimeline

Pilocarpine

Arm Description

Cevimeline vs Pilocarpine

Pilocarpine vs. Cevimeline

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Change From Baseline in Saliva Production in ml.
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.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Full Information

First Posted
April 6, 2011
Last Updated
May 1, 2018
Sponsor
University of Kentucky
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01690052
Brief Title
Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva
Official Title
Efficacy of Cevimeline vs. Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
May 2018
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
January 2009 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
June 2010 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
July 2010 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
University of Kentucky

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

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.
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.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Dry Mouth
Keywords
dry mouth

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Masking
ParticipantInvestigator
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
15 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Cevimeline
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Cevimeline vs Pilocarpine
Arm Title
Pilocarpine
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Pilocarpine vs. Cevimeline
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Cevimeline
Intervention Description
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.
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Pilocarpine
Intervention Description
Cevimlenine Vs Pilocarpine, cross over design, 4 weeks, one week wash out
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Change From Baseline in Saliva Production in ml.
Description
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.
Time Frame
4 weeks
Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures:
Title
Adverse Events
Description
Adverse events related to the combination and order of study medication will be measured
Time Frame
four weeks

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
21 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
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.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Joel Thompson, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Kentucky
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
University of Kentucky Orofacial Pain Center College of Dentistry
City
Lexington
State/Province
Kentucky
ZIP/Postal Code
40536
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Learn more about this trial

Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs