Skip to main content
Log in

Review of the Pharmacological Properties and Clinical Usefulness of Muscarinic Agonists for Xerostomia in Patients with Sjögren’s Syndrome

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The anti-xerostomia effects of muscarinic agonists (cholinomimetics) are reviewed. Cevimeline (cevimeline monohydrochloride hemihydrate) is a novel muscarinic agonist that stimulates salivary secretion in animals and humans both with normal salivary gland function and with impaired salivary secretion (xerostomia or oral dryness) as effectively as pilocarpine. Other classic and nonselective muscarinic agonists, such as arecoline, carbachol, muscarine and oxotremorine, as well as acetylcholine, failed to exhibit a sufficient salivation effect even at sublethal doses in animals.

Oral administration of cevimeline 30mg to humans induces a moderate and lasting increase in salivary flow, and the effect is maintained for at least 4 to 6 hours, longer than with pilocarpine. Mean increases in salivary flow rates after cevimeline treatment were 2-fold higher than after placebo, and no evidence of tolerance of the pharmacological effect has been observed during prolonged administration for up to 12 months.

The clinical efficacy of cevimeline in relieving symptoms of xerostomia, including oral dryness and difficulties in chewing, swallowing and speaking, has been demonstrated by placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised clinical trials in the USA and Japan. In these studies, cevimeline 30mg three times daily increased salivary flow and improved the symptoms of xerostomia in a significantly higher percentage of patients compared with placebo. Some patients receiving cevimeline therapy for xerostomia experienced adverse events such as sweating, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, diarrhoea, abdominal pain and vomiting), dizziness and rigors; these effects were related to muscarinic activity and were generally mild and tolerable in comparison with those of pilocarpine.

These findings suggest that muscarinic M3 agonists are suitable for the treatment of xerostomia. Cevimeline in particular has a long-lasting salivation effect with fewer adverse events than pilocarpine, and so is expected to be more useful for the treatment of xerostomia in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome, reducing symptom severity and improving their quality of life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1Use of tradenames is for product identification only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Navazesh M, Ship II. Xerostomia: diagnosis and treatment. Am J Otolaryngol 1983; 4: 283–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sreebny LM, Valdini A. Xerostomia: a neglected symptom. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147: 1333–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bjerrum K, Prause JU. Primary Sjogren’s syndrome: a subjective description of the disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1990; 8: 283–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Diagnosis of Sjögren’s syndrome. Lancet 1992; 340: 150–1

  5. Talal N. Sjögren’s syndrome: historical overview and clinical spectrum of disease. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1992; 18: 507–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dreizen S, Brown LR, Handler S, et al. Radiation-induced xerostomia in cancer patients: effect of salivary and serum electrolytes. Cancer 1976; 38: 273–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Vivino FB, Al-Hashimi I, Khan Z, et al. Pilocarpine tablets for the treatment of dry mouth and dry eye symptoms in patients with Sjögren syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose, multicenter trial. P92-01 Study Group. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 174–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fox RI, Michelson P. Approaches to the treatment of Sjögren’s syndrome. J Rheumatol Suppl 2000; 61: 15–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiseman LR, Faulds D. Oral pilocarpine: a review of its pharmacological properties and clinical potential in xerostomia. Drugs 1995; 49: 143–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher A, Brandeis R, Pittel Z, et al. Cis-2-methyl-spiro (l, 3-oxathiolane)-quinuclidine (AF102B), a new Ml agonist attenuates cognitive dysfunctions in AF64A-treated rats. Neurosci Lett 1989; 102: 325–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Iwabuchi Y, Masuhara T. Sialogogic activities of SNI-2011 compared with those of pilocarpine and McN-A-343 in rat salivary glands: identification of a potential therapeutic agent for treatment of Sjögren’s syndrome. Gen Pharmacol 1994; 25: 123–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Masunaga H, Ogawa H, Uematsu Y, et al. Long-lasting salivation induced by a novel muscarinic receptor agonist SNI-2011 in rats and dogs. Eur J Pharmacol 1997; 339: 1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Iga Y, Arisawa H, Ogane N, et al. Cevimeline hydrochloride induces saliva and tear secretions in rats and mice: the role of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Jpn J Pharmacol. 1998; 78: 373–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kashiwazaki S, Ichikawa Y, Touzyou T, et al. Optimal dose of SNI-2011 for xerostomia in Sjögren’s syndrome patients [in Japanese]. Med Consul New Rem 2001; 38: 333–47

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ichikawa Y, Kashiwazaki S, Hara M, et al. Double-blind, controlled study of SNI-2011 for xerostomia in Sjögren’s syndrome patients: Phase III trial [in Japanese]. Med Consul New Rem 2001; 38: 349–68

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nitsch RM, Deng M, Tennis M, et al. The selective M1 agonist AF-102B decreases levels of total Abeta in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol 2000; 48: 913–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ohtani Y, Ishii Y, Murasaki M, et al. Phase I study of FNS508: single and multiple dose studies [in Japanese]. J Clin Therap Med 1990; 6: 1551–76

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kashiwazaki S, Okano Y, Miyawaki M. Pharmacokinetics and salivation effect of SNI-2011 in Sjögren’s syndrome patients [in Japanese]. Med Consul New Rem 2001; 38: 393–405

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ishikawa Y, Skowronski MT, Ishida H. Persistent increase in the amount of aquaporin-5 in the apical plasma membrane of rat parotid acinar cells induced by a muscarinic agonist SNI-2011. FEBS Lett 2000; 477: 253–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ishikawa Y, Ishida H. Aquaporin water channel in salivary glands. Jpn J Pharmacol 2000; 83: 95–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Matui M, Motomura D, Karasawa H, et al. Multiple functional defects in peripheral autonomic organs in mice lacking muscarinic acetylcholine receptor gene for the M3 subtype. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97: 9579–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ichikawa Y, Kashiwazaki S, Hara M, et al. Long-term treatment trial of SNI-2011 for xerostomia in Sjögren’s syndrome patients [in Japanese]. Med Consul New Rem 2001; 38: 369–91

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oxholm P, Prause JU, Schiodt M. Rational drug therapy: recommendations for the treatment of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome. Drugs 1998; 56: 345–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Washio T, Arisawa H, Kohsaka K, et al. Identification of human drug-metabolizing enzymes involved in the metabolism of SNI-2011. Biol Pharm Bull 2001; 24: 1263–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely acknowledge the help of their colleagues for their collaboration on this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroshi Yasuda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yasuda, H., Niki, H. Review of the Pharmacological Properties and Clinical Usefulness of Muscarinic Agonists for Xerostomia in Patients with Sjögren’s Syndrome. Clin. Drug Investig. 22, 67–73 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200222020-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200222020-00001

Keywords

Navigation