Last Updated: August 8, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR CARDIZEM SR


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for CARDIZEM SR

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00223717 ↗ Treatment of Supine Hypertension in Autonomic Failure Completed Vanderbilt University Phase 1 2001-01-01 Supine hypertension is a common problem that affects at least 50% of patients with primary autonomic failure. Supine hypertension can be severe, and complicates the treatment of orthostatic hypotension. Drugs used for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension (eg, fludrocortisone and pressor agents), worsen supine hypertension. High blood pressure may also cause target organ damage in this group of patients. The pathophysiologic mechanisms causing supine hypertension in patients with autonomic failure have not been defined. In a study, we, the investigators at Vanderbilt University, examined 64 patients with AF, 29 with pure autonomic failure (PAF) and 35 with multiple system atrophy (MSA). 66% of patients had supine systolic (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 150 mmHg) or diastolic (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 mmHg) hypertension (average blood pressure [BP]: 179 ± 5/89 ± 3 mmHg in 21 PAF and 175 ± 5/92 ± 3 mmHg in 21 MSA patients). Plasma norepinephrine (92 ± 15 pg/mL) and plasma renin activity (0.3 ± 0.05 ng/mL per hour) were very low in a subset of patients with AF and supine hypertension. (Shannon et al., 1997). Our group has showed that a residual sympathetic function contributes to supine hypertension in patients with severe autonomic failure and that this effect is more prominent in patients with MSA than in those with PAF (Shannon et al., 2000). MSA patients had a marked depressor response to low infusion rates of trimethaphan, a ganglionic blocker; the response in PAF patients was more variable. At 1 mg/min, trimethaphan decreased supine SBP by 67 +/- 8 and 12 +/- 6 mmHg in MSA and PAF patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). MSA patients with supine hypertension also had greater SBP response to oral yohimbine, a central alpha2 receptor blocker, than PAF patients. Plasma norepinephrine decreased in both groups, but heart rate did not change in either group. This result suggests that residual sympathetic activity drives supine hypertension in MSA; in contrast, supine hypertension in PAF. It is hoped that from this study will emerge a complete picture of the supine hypertension of autonomic failure. Understanding the mechanism of this paradoxical hypertension in the setting of profound loss of sympathetic function will improve our approach to the treatment of hypertension in autonomic failure, and it could also contribute to our understanding of hypertension in general.
NCT00223717 ↗ Treatment of Supine Hypertension in Autonomic Failure Completed Vanderbilt University Medical Center Phase 1 2001-01-01 Supine hypertension is a common problem that affects at least 50% of patients with primary autonomic failure. Supine hypertension can be severe, and complicates the treatment of orthostatic hypotension. Drugs used for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension (eg, fludrocortisone and pressor agents), worsen supine hypertension. High blood pressure may also cause target organ damage in this group of patients. The pathophysiologic mechanisms causing supine hypertension in patients with autonomic failure have not been defined. In a study, we, the investigators at Vanderbilt University, examined 64 patients with AF, 29 with pure autonomic failure (PAF) and 35 with multiple system atrophy (MSA). 66% of patients had supine systolic (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 150 mmHg) or diastolic (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 mmHg) hypertension (average blood pressure [BP]: 179 ± 5/89 ± 3 mmHg in 21 PAF and 175 ± 5/92 ± 3 mmHg in 21 MSA patients). Plasma norepinephrine (92 ± 15 pg/mL) and plasma renin activity (0.3 ± 0.05 ng/mL per hour) were very low in a subset of patients with AF and supine hypertension. (Shannon et al., 1997). Our group has showed that a residual sympathetic function contributes to supine hypertension in patients with severe autonomic failure and that this effect is more prominent in patients with MSA than in those with PAF (Shannon et al., 2000). MSA patients had a marked depressor response to low infusion rates of trimethaphan, a ganglionic blocker; the response in PAF patients was more variable. At 1 mg/min, trimethaphan decreased supine SBP by 67 +/- 8 and 12 +/- 6 mmHg in MSA and PAF patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). MSA patients with supine hypertension also had greater SBP response to oral yohimbine, a central alpha2 receptor blocker, than PAF patients. Plasma norepinephrine decreased in both groups, but heart rate did not change in either group. This result suggests that residual sympathetic activity drives supine hypertension in MSA; in contrast, supine hypertension in PAF. It is hoped that from this study will emerge a complete picture of the supine hypertension of autonomic failure. Understanding the mechanism of this paradoxical hypertension in the setting of profound loss of sympathetic function will improve our approach to the treatment of hypertension in autonomic failure, and it could also contribute to our understanding of hypertension in general.
NCT00313157 ↗ RATe Control in Atrial Fibrillation Completed Asker & Baerum Hospital Phase 3 2006-04-01 The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of metoprolol, verapamil, diltiazem and carvedilol on ventricular rate, working capacity and quality of life in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation.
NCT00578617 ↗ Ablation vs Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation - Pilot Trial Completed Abbott Medical Devices N/A 2006-09-01 The CABANA pilot study is designed to test the hypothesis that the treatment strategy of percutaneous left atrial catheter ablation for the purpose of the elimination of atrial fibrillation (AF) is superior to current state-of-the-art therapy with either rate control or anti-arrhythmic drugs for reducing AF recurrences at 1 year follow-up.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for CARDIZEM SR

Condition Name

Condition Name for CARDIZEM SR
Intervention Trials
Atrial Fibrillation 4
Healthy 1
Heart Failure 1
Hypertension 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for CARDIZEM SR
Intervention Trials
Atrial Fibrillation 4
Hypertension 2
Heart Failure 1
Blood Loss, Surgical 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for CARDIZEM SR

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for CARDIZEM SR
Location Trials
United States 21
Norway 1
Canada 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for CARDIZEM SR
Location Trials
Minnesota 2
Tennessee 2
West Virginia 1
Florida 1
Texas 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for CARDIZEM SR

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for CARDIZEM SR
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Phase 4 2
Phase 3 2
Phase 1 3
[disabled in preview] 2
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for CARDIZEM SR
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 6
Unknown status 1
Withdrawn 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for CARDIZEM SR

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for CARDIZEM SR
Sponsor Trials
Mayo Clinic 2
St. Jude Medical 1
Medtronic 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for CARDIZEM SR
Sponsor Trials
Other 10
Industry 5
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Cardizem SR Clinical Trials, Market Analysis, Patent Status and Forecast

Last updated: July 30, 2026

Cardizem SR is an extended-release formulation of diltiazem hydrochloride, a nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker used primarily for hypertension and chronic stable angina. The branded product has no meaningful current clinical-trial program, no active development pipeline, and limited standalone commercial relevance. Market demand has shifted to generic diltiazem extended-release capsules, tablets, and other modified-release products. Future revenue is likely to remain stable to declining in mature markets, with competition driven by price, supply reliability, dosage-form substitution, and institutional purchasing.

What is Cardizem SR and how does it work?

Cardizem SR contains diltiazem hydrochloride in a sustained-release oral dosage form. Diltiazem inhibits calcium influx through L-type calcium channels in cardiac and vascular smooth muscle. Its pharmacologic effects include:

  • Reduced myocardial oxygen demand
  • Lower systemic vascular resistance
  • Slowed atrioventricular-node conduction
  • Reduced heart rate in susceptible patients
  • Increased coronary blood flow

The U.S. product labeling for Cardizem SR identifies hypertension and chronic stable angina as indications. Cardizem SR is distinct from Cardizem CD and Cardizem LA, which use different extended-release technologies, dosing schedules, and product approvals. These products should not be treated as automatically interchangeable solely because they contain the same active ingredient. (FDA, 2024a)

Cardizem SR dosage form

Cardizem SR is an oral sustained-release capsule formulation. Diltiazem is also marketed in several other dosage forms:

Product category Typical dosage form Main commercial role
Cardizem SR Sustained-release capsule Historical branded oral product
Generic diltiazem ER Extended-release capsule or tablet Current primary oral market
Cardizem CD Once-daily extended-release capsule Separate branded formulation
Cardizem LA Extended-release tablet Separate branded formulation
Generic immediate-release diltiazem Tablet or capsule Hypertension, angina, rate-control use
Injectable diltiazem Intravenous solution Acute atrial fibrillation/flutter rate control and certain tachyarrhythmias

What clinical trials have evaluated Cardizem SR?

Cardizem SR does not have a current brand-specific clinical development program. The product’s clinical evidence comes primarily from historical hypertension and angina studies supporting diltiazem and sustained-release diltiazem formulations.

The evidence base for diltiazem includes:

  1. Blood-pressure reduction in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.
  2. Reduction in anginal frequency and improvement in exercise tolerance.
  3. Ventricular-rate control in atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, mainly through immediate-release or intravenous formulations.
  4. Pharmacokinetic studies comparing sustained-release products with immediate-release diltiazem.
  5. Postmarketing safety data covering bradycardia, hypotension, conduction abnormalities, edema, and drug interactions.

Cardizem SR itself is not a prominent intervention in modern interventional trials. Contemporary clinical research generally evaluates diltiazem as a background drug, comparator, or rate-control therapy rather than as a branded Cardizem SR product.

What is the current ClinicalTrials.gov status?

There is no material active trial program identified for Cardizem SR as a branded investigational product. Searches for diltiazem produce studies involving atrial fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia, hypertension, migraine, coronary disease, and procedural care, but these studies do not represent new clinical development for Cardizem SR.

The distinction matters commercially. A study involving generic diltiazem or intravenous diltiazem does not create new exclusivity for Cardizem SR and does not support a new branded indication unless the sponsor completes the required regulatory program and obtains FDA approval.

What is the FDA regulatory status of Cardizem SR?

Cardizem SR was approved as a prescription extended-release diltiazem product. Its regulatory position is now primarily historical because generic diltiazem extended-release products have replaced the branded product in routine prescribing.

The FDA regulatory framework treats each extended-release formulation as a separate product for approval and substitution purposes. Cardizem SR, Cardizem CD, Cardizem LA, and generic extended-release products can differ in:

  • Release mechanism
  • Pharmacokinetic profile
  • Dosing frequency
  • Capsule or tablet design
  • FDA application
  • Approved labeling
  • Substitution status

The FDA Orange Book identifies approved multisource products and their therapeutic-equivalence ratings. A generic diltiazem ER product must demonstrate pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence to its reference product or obtain approval through another legally recognized pathway. (FDA, 2024b)

Is Cardizem SR currently marketed?

Cardizem SR has limited or no material current U.S. branded-market presence compared with generic diltiazem ER. Historical product availability does not establish current commercial marketing. FDA product databases can list discontinued or no-longer-marketed products even when the brand is absent from pharmacy distribution.

The practical market is therefore divided between:

  • Generic diltiazem ER products
  • Other branded diltiazem formulations
  • Generic immediate-release diltiazem
  • Intravenous diltiazem
  • Alternative rate-control and antihypertensive therapies

What patents protect Cardizem SR?

Cardizem SR does not have a commercially relevant active patent estate that would block ordinary generic competition. The original composition, formulation, and product-specific patent protections are historical. Any original U.S. patents associated with diltiazem or early sustained-release formulations would have expired well before the current period.

The principal intellectual-property barriers were historically associated with:

  • Diltiazem active-ingredient claims
  • Sustained-release dosage forms
  • Release-rate control
  • Capsule or bead technology
  • Pharmacokinetic performance
  • Manufacturing processes

Those barriers no longer provide meaningful market exclusivity for the original Cardizem SR product.

Are there Orange Book patents for Cardizem SR?

No current Orange Book patent barrier is expected to prevent generic diltiazem ER competition for the historical Cardizem SR product. Orange Book listings can change as products are discontinued, delisted, or transferred between sponsors. The absence of a current enforceable patent barrier is consistent with the long-established generic market.

Patent analysis should distinguish Cardizem SR from later diltiazem products. A patent covering a later once-daily formulation, multiparticulate system, or specific release profile would not automatically protect Cardizem SR.

Were there Paragraph IV challenges?

Generic applicants historically could have challenged any listed patents associated with diltiazem extended-release products through Paragraph IV certifications. Those challenges are no longer a significant commercial issue for Cardizem SR because the original market exclusivity period and relevant patent terms have expired.

Current generic risk is therefore operational rather than litigation-based. Key risks include:

  • Product shortages
  • FDA manufacturing observations
  • API supply disruption
  • Recalls
  • Contract-manufacturing changes
  • Reimbursement pressure
  • Formulation-specific substitution limits

When did Cardizem SR lose exclusivity?

Cardizem SR lost effective market exclusivity years ago. The original diltiazem molecule was discovered and commercialized decades before the current generic market. The relevant exclusivity periods consisted of:

Exclusivity type Current position
New chemical entity exclusivity Expired
Original product patent protection Expired
Formulation patents Historical or expired for the original SR product
Pediatric exclusivity No material current effect
Orphan exclusivity Not applicable
Current regulatory exclusivity None of commercial significance

FDA approval of generic diltiazem extended-release products confirms that the market is open to multisource competition. (FDA, 2024b)

How strong is the Cardizem SR patent estate?

The Cardizem SR patent estate is weak from a current commercial-protection perspective. Its historical value was based on formulation differentiation rather than an enduring active-ingredient monopoly. The key strength indicators are:

Factor Assessment
Active compound protection None
Current formulation exclusivity None of material commercial effect
Generic blocking position Weak
Litigation leverage Low
Manufacturing know-how value Moderate but product-specific
Brand pricing power Low
Lifecycle-management value Limited

The remaining technical value lies in manufacturing consistency, dissolution performance, stability, and supply-chain execution. Those attributes can support a supplier relationship but generally do not create a durable legal barrier to generic entry.

What is the Cardizem SR market size?

Cardizem SR does not have a reliable standalone market category in public pharmaceutical reporting. Most datasets aggregate it with generic diltiazem extended-release products or with the broader diltiazem market. Public company filings typically do not report Cardizem SR revenue separately.

The commercial market is best analyzed through prescription volume, not brand revenue. Diltiazem remains an established low-cost cardiovascular medicine, but its value has declined because of:

  • Generic substitution
  • Therapeutic competition
  • Limited innovation
  • Low reimbursement rates
  • Multiple approved dosage forms
  • Retail and hospital purchasing concentration

The largest commercial opportunity is not the legacy brand. It is reliable supply of generic extended-release diltiazem, particularly where competitors experience shortages or manufacturing disruptions.

What companies compete with Cardizem SR?

Competition comes from generic manufacturers and alternative cardiovascular products. Depending on dosage form and market, generic diltiazem suppliers may include large manufacturers such as Teva, Viatris, Sandoz, Hikma, Amneal, and other FDA-approved applicants. Supplier participation varies by strength, formulation, market, and time.

Therapeutic competitors include:

  • Verapamil
  • Beta blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol
  • Dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers such as amlodipine
  • Digoxin for selected rate-control settings
  • Antiarrhythmic therapies in defined patient populations

Diltiazem has a differentiated role in patients needing both rate control and vasodilatory activity. That clinical utility supports continuing demand even though it does not support premium pricing.

What is the revenue outlook for Cardizem SR?

The standalone Cardizem SR revenue outlook is limited. A practical forecast should assume that branded sales remain negligible unless a sponsor relaunches the product with a new commercial strategy.

Base-case market projection

Period Cardizem SR branded outlook Generic diltiazem ER outlook Principal driver
2025-2026 Flat to declining from a low base Stable to modestly declining Mature generic demand
2027-2029 Minimal branded contribution Low-single-digit volume pressure Price erosion and substitution
2030 onward No material growth expected Stable essential-use demand Aging cardiovascular population offset by generic erosion

A relaunch could produce limited niche revenue through improved supply, packaging, or a differentiated delivery profile. It would face substantial barriers:

  • No meaningful patent protection
  • Low physician switching incentive
  • Generic price competition
  • Pharmacy substitution
  • Limited promotional return
  • Need for dependable manufacturing scale

The broader diltiazem market should remain resilient because hypertension, coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and supraventricular tachycardia continue to generate demand. Volume stability will not necessarily translate into revenue growth.

What generic launch scenarios exist for Cardizem SR?

Scenario 1: Continued generic erosion

This is the most likely scenario. Multiple generic suppliers maintain supply, prices remain low, and the Cardizem SR brand has little commercial role.

Scenario 2: Supply-constrained pricing

A manufacturing disruption or shortage among major suppliers could temporarily increase contract prices or improve the economics of smaller suppliers. The effect would likely be temporary because diltiazem is an established molecule with broad manufacturing experience.

Scenario 3: Formulation-specific substitution limits

A generic product may be therapeutically equivalent to one reference extended-release product but not automatically substitutable for every diltiazem modified-release formulation. This creates narrow opportunities for formulation-specific products with validated pharmacokinetic characteristics.

Scenario 4: Brand relaunch

A relaunch would require commercial differentiation, dependable supply, and a reimbursement strategy. Patent-based protection would not be the principal value driver.

What manufacturing and IP barriers affect diltiazem ER?

Manufacturing barriers are higher than the legal barriers. Extended-release diltiazem requires controlled release over the intended dosing interval and consistent dissolution across production lots. Regulatory risks include:

  • Dissolution-profile failure
  • Dose dumping
  • Batch-to-batch variability
  • Capsule-fill variation
  • Stability problems
  • API impurity control
  • Packaging-related degradation
  • Inadequate process validation

A sponsor with strong modified-release manufacturing capabilities can compete despite low margins. The commercial advantage comes from quality and supply continuity rather than exclusivity.

How does Cardizem SR compare with Cardizem CD and Cardizem LA?

Attribute Cardizem SR Cardizem CD Cardizem LA
Active ingredient Diltiazem HCl Diltiazem HCl Diltiazem HCl
Release design Sustained release Extended release Long-acting extended release
Dosing profile Product-specific Generally once daily Generally once daily
Patent position Historical, expired Historical or formulation-specific Historical or formulation-specific
Generic competition Established Established Established or formulation-specific
Current commercial position Limited Brand and generic legacy presence Brand and generic legacy presence
Substitution Depends on FDA rating and product Depends on FDA rating and product Depends on FDA rating and product

These products should not be evaluated as one interchangeable patent or market category. A formulation-specific patent could protect a later product without restoring protection to Cardizem SR.

What litigation and settlement agreements affect Cardizem SR?

No active litigation or settlement agreement is expected to have a material effect on the current Cardizem SR market. Historical patent disputes involving diltiazem extended-release products may have affected the timing of generic entry, but those disputes no longer determine current market access.

The relevant current legal issues are more likely to involve:

  • FDA approval disputes
  • ANDA deficiencies
  • Product liability
  • Manufacturing compliance
  • Drug-shortage allocation
  • Contract disputes
  • Trademark use for discontinued brands

Key Takeaways

  • Cardizem SR is an older sustained-release diltiazem product with limited current branded-market relevance.
  • No meaningful active clinical-trial program is associated with Cardizem SR.
  • The product’s historical patents and regulatory exclusivities have expired.
  • Generic diltiazem extended-release products define the current market.
  • Standalone Cardizem SR revenue is likely negligible and has limited growth potential.
  • Future commercial value depends on manufacturing reliability, formulation quality, and supply continuity.
  • Diltiazem demand should remain clinically durable, but generic pricing will constrain revenue.
  • Cardizem SR, Cardizem CD, and Cardizem LA have different release technologies and should not be assumed to be automatically substitutable.
  • Current competitive risk is operational and pricing-based rather than patent-litigation-based.

FAQs

Is Cardizem SR still available by prescription?

The original branded product has limited current availability. Prescribers generally use generic diltiazem extended-release products or other approved diltiazem formulations.

Is generic diltiazem SR equivalent to Cardizem SR?

Equivalence depends on the specific FDA-approved reference product, dosage strength, release technology, and Orange Book therapeutic-equivalence rating. Extended-release diltiazem products should not be substituted solely on the basis of active ingredient.

Does Cardizem SR have a patent expiration date?

Any original patents associated with Cardizem SR are historical and expired. No current patent term is expected to block generic diltiazem extended-release competition.

Is diltiazem being studied for new indications?

Diltiazem continues to appear in clinical studies and treatment protocols, particularly in arrhythmia and cardiovascular settings. Those studies generally do not represent new branded development for Cardizem SR.

What is the investment case for diltiazem extended-release manufacturing?

The investment case is based on stable essential-use demand and supply reliability, not patent exclusivity. Returns depend on manufacturing cost, regulatory performance, customer concentration, product availability, and the ability to avoid commodity-level price competition.

References

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024a). Cardizem SR: Prescribing information. FDA Drugs@FDA.

  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024b). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book. FDA.

  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024c). Drugs@FDA: FDA-approved drug products. FDA.

  4. National Library of Medicine. (2024). ClinicalTrials.gov search results for diltiazem. U.S. National Library of Medicine.

  5. American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society. (2019). 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation, 140(6), e285-e292.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.