Last Updated: June 23, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR CEVIMELINE


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for CEVIMELINE

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00017511 ↗ Cevimeline in Treating Patients With Dry Mouth Caused by Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer Completed Daiichi Sankyo Inc. Phase 3 2001-06-01 RATIONALE: Cevimeline may be effective in treating dry mouth that is caused by radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. It is not yet known if cevimeline is more effective than no therapy in treating dry mouth caused by radiation therapy. PURPOSE: Randomized phase III trial to determine the effectiveness of cevimeline in treating patients who have dryness of the mouth caused by radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.
NCT00017511 ↗ Cevimeline in Treating Patients With Dry Mouth Caused by Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer Completed Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Phase 3 2001-06-01 RATIONALE: Cevimeline may be effective in treating dry mouth that is caused by radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. It is not yet known if cevimeline is more effective than no therapy in treating dry mouth caused by radiation therapy. PURPOSE: Randomized phase III trial to determine the effectiveness of cevimeline in treating patients who have dryness of the mouth caused by radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.
NCT00466388 ↗ Study of the Effectiveness of Cevimeline on Oral Health in Patients With Radiation Induced Xerostomia Completed Duke University Phase 4 2007-05-01 The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of cevimeline (versus placebo) on the oral health of patients who have dry mouth which was caused by radiation therapy that was given for treatment of head and/or neck cancer.
NCT00466388 ↗ Study of the Effectiveness of Cevimeline on Oral Health in Patients With Radiation Induced Xerostomia Completed American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Phase 4 2007-05-01 The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of cevimeline (versus placebo) on the oral health of patients who have dry mouth which was caused by radiation therapy that was given for treatment of head and/or neck cancer.
NCT01690052 ↗ Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva Completed University of Kentucky N/A 2009-01-01 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.
NCT01903109 ↗ Crossover Bioequivalence Study of Cevimeline 30 mg Capsules Under Fed Conditions Completed Roxane Laboratories Early Phase 1 2009-02-01 The objective of this study was to prove the bioequivalence of Roxane Laboratories' Cevimeline 30 mg under fed conditions
NCT01903122 ↗ Crossover Bioequivalence Study of Cevimeline 30 mg Capsules Under Fasted Conditions Completed Roxane Laboratories Early Phase 1 2009-02-01 The objective of this study was to prove the bioequivalence of Roxane Laboratories' Cevimeline 30 mg under fasted conditions
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for CEVIMELINE

Condition Name

Condition Name for CEVIMELINE
Intervention Trials
Dry Mouth 3
Xerostomia 2
Dry Eye 1
Head and Neck Cancer 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 CEVIMELINE
Intervention Trials
Xerostomia 5
Head and Neck Neoplasms 1
Dry Eye Syndromes 1
Urinary Bladder, Overactive 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for CEVIMELINE

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for CEVIMELINE
Location Trials
United States 43
Australia 2
Taiwan 2
Egypt 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 CEVIMELINE
Location Trials
Kentucky 3
Nevada 2
Virginia 2
Pennsylvania 2
Kansas 2
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for CEVIMELINE

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for CEVIMELINE
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
PHASE4 1
PHASE2 1
Phase 4 2
[disabled in preview] 4
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for CEVIMELINE
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 6
RECRUITING 2
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for CEVIMELINE

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for CEVIMELINE
Sponsor Trials
Roxane Laboratories 2
Daiichi Sankyo Inc. 1
Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. 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 CEVIMELINE
Sponsor Trials
Industry 5
Other 5
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Cevimeline clinical trials update, market analysis, and exclusivity-driven sales projection (2026-2035)

Last updated: May 21, 2026

Cevimeline is a small-molecule muscarinic receptor agonist (M3-selective) approved for symptomatic treatment of xerostomia (dry mouth) in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome. The commercial and clinical outlook is constrained by (1) limited US and EU uptake history, (2) absence of late-stage expansion programs in public registries for new indications or delivery systems, and (3) supply and patent life factors typical for older niche oral products.

Because complete, up-to-date, source-verifiable trial-by-trial and patent-expiration inputs are not available in the information provided, no market forecast with dates, launch timing, or quantified revenue projections can be produced without risking factual errors.

Market analysis summary

  • Therapeutic niche: symptomatic xerostomia in Sjögren’s syndrome.
  • Value driver: patient adherence to oral dosing plus prescriber familiarity.
  • Primary headwinds: competing symptomatic salivary substitutes and emerging Sjögren’s pipelines that may shift attention toward broader disease-modifying approaches.
  • Forecast implication: any growth scenario is likely to be incremental and primarily share- and penetration-driven rather than indication-expansion-driven.

Clinical trials reality check

  • Public-facing trial programs: no specific, current-phase clinical development plan for Cevimeline (new trials, registrant sponsor updates, phase transitions, or results) can be cited from the provided inputs.
  • Forecast implication: absent confirmed late-stage readouts or new label pathways, base-case commercialization remains tied to maintenance sales and limited switching.

What is the latest clinical trials status for cevimeline?

Featured-snippet answer: The latest, source-verifiable clinical trials update for cevimeline cannot be produced from the inputs available here.

Which phases are actively enrolling cevimeline right now?

No enrollment status, phase, or recruiting endpoints can be validated from the provided material.

Have any cevimeline trials reported results recently?

No results timeline can be asserted without source-backed trial IDs and publication dates.

Is cevimeline being studied for new indications beyond Sjögren’s xerostomia?

No new indication program can be confirmed from the provided information.


What is the current market size for cevimeline and who are the main competitors?

Featured-snippet answer: A quantified market size cannot be produced from the provided inputs without risk of inventing figures.

Commercial demand drivers in Sjögren’s xerostomia

  • Disease prevalence in diagnosed populations
  • Prescription-based penetration of muscarinic agonists
  • Adherence to oral regimens
  • Treatment switching patterns among xerostomia symptom therapies

Competitive landscape for symptomatic dry mouth

Cevimeline competes for xerostomia-treatment attention with:

  • saliva stimulants and substitutes (including products positioned for dryness relief)
  • off-label approaches depending on country and prescribing practice
  • other muscarinic agonist strategies where available

A precise competitor-by-competitor share analysis cannot be created from the provided inputs.

How does cevimeline compare with alternative symptomatic xerostomia products?

A pricing-and-efficacy comparative market position cannot be established without labeled competitor dossiers, WAC/AWP/price history, and prescription data by geography.


When does cevimeline lose exclusivity and what patent barriers affect generics?

Featured-snippet answer: Specific exclusivity and patent-expiration timing cannot be stated from the provided inputs.

What patents protect cevimeline in the US and EU?

No patent numbers, assignees, or expiration dates can be listed without source-backed Orange Book or patent register data.

What is the Orange Book status of cevimeline?

No Orange Book entry status can be cited.

Do Paragraph IV challenges exist for cevimeline?

No litigation or ANDA/Paragraph IV status can be asserted.

Are there biosimilar risks for cevimeline?

No biosimilar pathway applies because cevimeline is not a biologic.


What formulation, method-of-use, and manufacturing patents exist for cevimeline?

Featured-snippet answer: No formulation or process patent coverage can be mapped without patent documents and family data.

What is protected about cevimeline dosing forms?

No dosage form protection list can be generated from the provided inputs.

Are there method-of-use patents for Sjögren’s-related xerostomia?

No method-of-use claim sets can be enumerated without patents.


What FDA regulatory milestones apply to cevimeline and how do they impact commercialization?

Featured-snippet answer: Regulatory milestone dates cannot be verified from the provided inputs.

What is cevimeline’s approved indication and labeling scope?

The approved use is symptomatic treatment of xerostomia in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome; label expansion timelines cannot be confirmed beyond that.

Does cevimeline have REMS, pediatric exclusivity, or other exclusivity add-ons?

No exclusivity add-on status can be cited.


How strong is the patent estate for cevimeline across jurisdictions (US, EP, JP)?

Featured-snippet answer: Patent strength and geographic coverage cannot be quantified without sourced patent family data.

How many patent families cover cevimeline and what is their remaining life?

No patent family count or remaining-life schedule can be produced from the provided inputs.

Which jurisdictions are most exposed to generic entry risk?

No entry risk geography can be assigned without ANDA history and patent landscape.


What generic entry risks exist for cevimeline and what scenarios could drive sales changes?

Featured-snippet answer: Generic entry scenarios cannot be dated without Orange Book status and ANDA Paragraph IV history.

Scenario framework that would be used (but cannot be populated here)

  • Patent-expiry or exclusivity end date
  • Generic filing timing
  • Potential settlement timeline
  • Launch timing and price erosion curve

No parameters can be filled in from the provided inputs.


Market projection for cevimeline (base, upside, downside)

Featured-snippet answer: No quantified revenue projection (USD, units, or CAGR) can be produced from the provided inputs without inventing values.

Base-case projection logic

A defensible base case for an older niche oral product typically anchors on:

  • stable treated-population demand
  • modest adherence and switching
  • limited new prescriber adoption
  • pricing pressure from generic competition where applicable

Upside projection logic

Upside requires at least one of:

  • documented new clinical readouts expanding label
  • measurable penetration acceleration (distribution or payer coverage change)
  • significant pricing improvements through formulary positioning

No such catalysts can be validated here.

Downside projection logic

Downside typically comes from:

  • supply disruptions
  • formulary exclusion or payer restriction
  • accelerated competition
  • substitution by other symptom-relief assets

No confirmed triggers can be cited from the provided inputs.

Time horizon

A 2026-2035 forecast normally requires:

  • historical sales series
  • geography mix
  • patent expiry and generic launch dates
  • pricing and volume sensitivity

Those inputs are not present here.


Key Takeaways

  • Cevimeline is a niche, symptomatic Sjögren’s xerostomia product with demand driven by adherence and prescribing penetration.
  • A clinical trials update with phase-by-phase status and results cannot be provided from the information available here.
  • A quantified market size and 2026-2035 revenue projection cannot be produced without sourced trial, regulatory, patent, and historical sales inputs.
  • Any defensible outlook must be anchored to Orange Book status, patent expiration dates, ANDA/Paragraph IV events, and verified sales history, none of which are supplied.

FAQs

  1. What is cevimeline approved for in the US, and what outcomes do clinicians measure for Sjögren’s xerostomia?
  2. How do cevimeline’s dosing schedules affect adherence compared with other xerostomia therapies?
  3. What is the typical payer coverage pattern for symptomatic dry mouth drugs in Sjögren’s patients?
  4. What data sources are used to build a defensible cevimeline market forecast (TRx, NBRx, WAC, payer lists)?
  5. What are the main regulatory and patent steps that determine generic launch timing for older oral niche drugs like cevimeline?

References (APA)

  1. (No citable sources provided in the prompt.)

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.