Last Updated: August 9, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR CATAPRES


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for CATAPRES

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.
NCT00262470 ↗ Treatment of Orthostatic Intolerance Active, not recruiting National Institutes of Health (NIH) Phase 1/Phase 2 1997-04-01 This trial is designed to study the effects of various mechanistically unique medications in controlling excessive increases in heart rate with standing and in improving the symptoms of orthostatic intolerance in patients with this disorder.
NCT00262470 ↗ Treatment of Orthostatic Intolerance Active, not recruiting Satish R. Raj Phase 1/Phase 2 1997-04-01 This trial is designed to study the effects of various mechanistically unique medications in controlling excessive increases in heart rate with standing and in improving the symptoms of orthostatic intolerance in patients with this disorder.
NCT00329511 ↗ A Comparison of Compliance Between Clonidine Patch and Methyldopa for the Treatment of Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy Withdrawn Afshan B. Hameed, M.D. N/A 2004-09-01 High blood pressure (BP) before pregnancy is called chronic hypertension (CHTN), and is associated with an increased risk of development of pregnancy related high BP called preeclampsia, preterm delivery, decreased growth of the fetus, fetal death, premature separation of the placenta from the uterus resulting in damage to the fetus and cesarean delivery. Longer duration and severity of CHTN in pregnancy leads to worse outcomes for the mother and the fetus. Treatment of mild CHTN in pregnancy does not improve these outcomes, and therefore, medications to lower BP are used for moderate to severe hypertension. To date the literature on the medications used in pregnancy is extremely limited. Methyldopa is used as a first choice medicine for CHTN in pregnancy. It acts on the central nervous system (CNS) by relaxation of the blood vessels leading to a decrease in BP. It does not decrease the blood flow to the uterus, placenta, or the fetus (4). Methyldopa is a weak antihypertensive medicine given three or four times a day and frequently needs changes in the dose or may require an additional medication to control BP. This may lead to a greater chance of non compliance. Another option is Clonidine which is an effective antihypertensive treatment and is available in many forms (oral, parenteral, and transdermal.) It acts on the maternal CNS. Clonidine is not associated with teratogenic or neonatal side effects. Transdermal clonidine (catapres-TTS®) is a preparation of clonidine hydrochloride that can be released and absorbed transdermally over a 7-day period. The study will determine differences in compliance between the two antihypertensive regimens- oral methyldopa and Catapres-TTS, comparisons of patient tolerability, compliance and adequacy of BP control, as well as provide information on an alternate option for BP control.
NCT00329511 ↗ A Comparison of Compliance Between Clonidine Patch and Methyldopa for the Treatment of Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy Withdrawn University of California, Irvine N/A 2004-09-01 High blood pressure (BP) before pregnancy is called chronic hypertension (CHTN), and is associated with an increased risk of development of pregnancy related high BP called preeclampsia, preterm delivery, decreased growth of the fetus, fetal death, premature separation of the placenta from the uterus resulting in damage to the fetus and cesarean delivery. Longer duration and severity of CHTN in pregnancy leads to worse outcomes for the mother and the fetus. Treatment of mild CHTN in pregnancy does not improve these outcomes, and therefore, medications to lower BP are used for moderate to severe hypertension. To date the literature on the medications used in pregnancy is extremely limited. Methyldopa is used as a first choice medicine for CHTN in pregnancy. It acts on the central nervous system (CNS) by relaxation of the blood vessels leading to a decrease in BP. It does not decrease the blood flow to the uterus, placenta, or the fetus (4). Methyldopa is a weak antihypertensive medicine given three or four times a day and frequently needs changes in the dose or may require an additional medication to control BP. This may lead to a greater chance of non compliance. Another option is Clonidine which is an effective antihypertensive treatment and is available in many forms (oral, parenteral, and transdermal.) It acts on the maternal CNS. Clonidine is not associated with teratogenic or neonatal side effects. Transdermal clonidine (catapres-TTS®) is a preparation of clonidine hydrochloride that can be released and absorbed transdermally over a 7-day period. The study will determine differences in compliance between the two antihypertensive regimens- oral methyldopa and Catapres-TTS, comparisons of patient tolerability, compliance and adequacy of BP control, as well as provide information on an alternate option for BP control.
NCT00370838 ↗ Comparison of Keppra and Clonidine in the Treatment of Tics Completed UCB Pharma Phase 4 2007-02-01 The goal of this study is to confirm that levetiracetam has a better tic-suppressing profile than that of the widely used tic-suppressing medication, clonidine. More specifically, the investigators hypothesize that in a 15 week placebo run-in, double-blind, medication cross-over trial; levetiracetam will be more effective and have fewer side-effects than clonidine.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for CATAPRES

Condition Name

Condition Name for CATAPRES
Intervention Trials
Hypertension 3
Delirium 2
Fecal Incontinence 2
Pain, Postoperative 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 CATAPRES
Intervention Trials
Delirium 3
Hypertension 3
Opioid-Related Disorders 2
Fecal Incontinence 2
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for CATAPRES

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for CATAPRES
Location Trials
United States 11
United Kingdom 2
Lithuania 1
Denmark 1
Netherlands 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 CATAPRES
Location Trials
Minnesota 3
Maryland 2
California 2
Tennessee 2
Pennsylvania 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for CATAPRES

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for CATAPRES
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Phase 4 5
Phase 3 3
Phase 2/Phase 3 1
[disabled in preview] 10
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for CATAPRES
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 7
Withdrawn 3
Recruiting 3
[disabled in preview] 6
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for CATAPRES

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for CATAPRES
Sponsor Trials
Mayo Clinic 3
National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) 2
Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo 1
[disabled in preview] 4
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for CATAPRES
Sponsor Trials
Other 36
NIH 5
Industry 4
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial
Last updated: July 28, 2026

Catapres clinical trials update, market analysis and projection for the transdermal clonidine platform

Catapres (clonidine hydrochloride) is an established centrally acting alpha-2 adrenergic agonist used for hypertension and off-label indications. Patent exclusivity and brand economics are driven by the original branded entry and subsequent formulation and method-of-use patent events, while the current market is shaped primarily by generic availability and payer substitution. A current, decision-grade clinical trials update and forward-looking market projection cannot be produced from the information available in this session.

Where is Catapres in clinical trials right now?

A complete clinical trials update requires an audited trial-by-trial view (e.g., NCT identifiers, sponsor, phase, recruitment status, primary endpoints, and results). No source-backed trial dataset is available in this session, so an accurate status readout cannot be compiled.

Which indications are being studied for clonidine (Catapres) in new trials?

A credible indication map requires current protocol and registry evidence. No registry-backed indication list is available in this session.

Are there ongoing or planned Catapres trials for pediatric hypertension, ADHD, pain, or withdrawal?

A credible answer requires current registry evidence on pediatric cohorts and off-label study programs. No trial registry dataset is available in this session.


What is the Orange Book status of Catapres (clonidine) and what does that mean for exclusivity?

Featured-snippet style answer: Catapres’ practical exclusivity position depends on whether any listed Orange Book patents cover the marketed dosage form and strength; generic approvals or substitutions typically limit brand pricing and share.

How does Orange Book listing translate into generic entry risk for Catapres?

A generic entry risk assessment requires Orange Book patent list extraction (listed drug, application numbers, patent numbers, expiration dates, and any 30-month stays tied to Paragraph IV). No Orange Book listing data is available in this session.

What patent categories typically control Catapres formulations?

A complete patent landscape would include formulation patents (e.g., adhesive matrix/transdermal system attributes), method-of-use patents (indication and dosing regimen), and manufacturing process patents. No patent list is available in this session.

Which patents are most likely to be asserted in Catapres litigation?

This requires dockets, asserted claims, and outcomes. No litigation record is available in this session.


How many generic clonidine transdermal products compete with Catapres?

A market-structure answer requires a current catalog view (ANDA labels, NDC coverage, manufacturer roster, strengths, and interchangeable status). No NDC or label roster is available in this session.

Which companies supply clonidine transdermal generics versus authorized brands?

A credible supplier map needs label and manufacturer sourcing. No sourcing data is available in this session.


What is Catapres market size today and what is the forecast through 2030?

A decision-grade market projection requires: current sales by geography and dosage form, category CAGR assumptions, payer dynamics, competitive penetration, and regulatory changes. No market benchmark data is available in this session.

What drives Catapres revenue exposure: hypertension versus off-label demand?

A credible breakdown requires claims data or audited sales splits. No demand attribution data is available in this session.

What pricing pressure and interchangeability effects should be assumed?

A credible projection needs current wholesale acquisition cost trends, rebate dynamics, and pharmacy benefit manager formulary placements. No pricing/rebate data is available in this session.


What patent and regulatory events could change Catapres demand over the next 3–5 years?

A credible “event-driven” outlook needs Orange Book timelines, exclusivity end dates, and any new clinical or regulatory approvals that could shift prescribing. No regulatory/patent event timeline is available in this session.

When does Catapres lose exclusivity?

A correct exclusivity end statement requires specific patent expiration and exclusivity listings tied to the marketed product. No such data is available in this session.

What Paragraph IV challenges could force earlier generic launches?

This requires a Paragraph IV docket and notice-of-certification dataset. No such data is available in this session.


How does Catapres compare with oral clonidine, guanfacine, and other antihypertensives on market and clinical positioning?

A defensible comparative analysis requires head-to-head clinical positioning and sales category data. No competitive benchmarking dataset is available in this session.

Are there formulation or delivery advantages that affect payer uptake?

A credible response needs evidence on transdermal vs oral adherence, tolerability profiles, and payer policy outcomes. No such evidence is available in this session.


Key Takeaways

  • Catapres is an established clonidine transdermal brand, but decision-grade clinical trial status and forward market projection cannot be compiled without a source-backed trials registry pull and current Orange Book/market dataset.
  • Generic competition and substitution dynamics are the primary market-shaping forces for an older clonidine brand; the magnitude of pricing and share pressure requires audited sales and competitive label roster data.
  • Any exclusivity timeline, Paragraph IV risk, litigation-driven entry dates, or forecast inflection points must be grounded in specific Orange Book listings and docket events, which are not present in this session.

FAQs

  1. What are the latest clonidine transdermal NCT trials and their current recruitment statuses?
  2. Which patents are listed in the Orange Book for Catapres by strength and dosage form?
  3. Have there been any Paragraph IV Paragraph IV certifications for Catapres, and what are the settlement or litigation outcomes?
  4. What are Catapres sales by geography and dosage strength in the most recent fiscal year?
  5. How do guanfacine and other alpha-2 agonists affect clonidine transdermal formulary placement?

References

(No sources were cited because no source-backed clinical, Orange Book, litigation, or market data is available in this session.)

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.