Pharmacological interventions for prevention of weight gain in people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is an extremely common problem in people with schizophrenia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive pharmacological interventions may be necessary to help manage antipsychotic-induced weight gain. This review splits and updates a previous Cochrane Review that focused on both pharmacological and behavioural approaches to this problem. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for preventing antipsychotic-induced weight gain in people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Schizophrenia Information Specialist searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Register of Trials on 10 February 2021. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined any adjunctive pharmacological intervention for preventing weight gain in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses who use antipsychotic medications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. For continuous outcomes, we combined mean differences (MD) in endpoint and change data in the analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to judge certainty of evidence and create summary of findings tables. The primary outcomes for this review were clinically important change in weight, clinically important change in body mass index (BMI), leaving the study early, compliance with treatment, and frequency of nausea. The included studies rarely reported these outcomes, so, post hoc, we added two new outcomes, average endpoint/change in weight and average endpoint/change in BMI. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs, with a total of 1388 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five studies investigated metformin, three topiramate, three H2 antagonists, three monoamine modulators, and one each investigated monoamine modulators plus betahistine, melatonin and samidorphan. The comparator in all studies was placebo or no treatment (i.e. standard care alone). We synthesised all studies in a quantitative meta-analysis. Most studies inadequately reported their methods of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. The resulting risk of bias and often small sample sizes limited the overall certainty of the evidence. Only one reboxetine study reported the primary outcome, number of participants with clinically important change in weight. Fewer people in the treatment condition experienced weight gains of more than 5% and more than 7% of their bodyweight than those in the placebo group (> 5% weight gain RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.65; 1 study, 43 participants; > 7% weight gain RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the primary outcomes, 'clinically important change in BMI', or 'compliance with treatment'. However, several studies reported 'average endpoint/change in body weight' or 'average endpoint/change in BMI'. Metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.03 kg, 95% CI -5.78 to -2.28; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence); and BMI increase (MD -1.63 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.29; 5 studies, 227 participants; low-certainty evidence). Other agents that may be slightly effective in preventing weight gain include H2 antagonists such as nizatidine, famotidine and ranitidine (MD -1.32 kg, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.56; 3 studies, 248 participants; low-certainty evidence) and monoamine modulators such as reboxetine and fluoxetine (weight: MD -1.89 kg, 95% CI -3.31 to -0.47; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI: MD -0.66 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.26; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Topiramate did not appear effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.82 kg, 95% CI -9.99 to 0.35; 3 studies, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For all agents, there was no difference between groups in terms of individuals leaving the study or reports of nausea. However, the results of these outcomes are uncertain given the very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence to suggest that metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain. Interpretation of this result and those for other agents, is limited by the small number of studies, small sample size, and short study duration. In future, we need studies that are adequately powered and with longer treatment durations to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing weight gain.

Formulation and characterization of floating microballoons of nizatidine for effective treatment of gastric ulcers in murine model.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to formulate and characterize Nizatidine-encapsulated microballoons for enhancing bioavailability and increasing the residence time of drug in the gastrointestinal tract. METHODS: Microballoons were prepared using emulsion solvent diffusion method using Eudragit S-100 and HPMC as the polymer. The formulation process was optimized for polymer ratio, drug: polymer ratio, emulsifier concentration, stirring speed, stirring time. Optimized formulation was subjected to scanning electron microscopy, drug entrapment, buoyancy studies, in-vitro drug release and in-vivo floating efficiency (X-ray) study. In-vivo antiulcer activity was assessed by ethanol-induced ulcer in murine model. RESULTS: The microballoons were smooth and spherical in shape and were porous in nature due to hollow core. A sustained release of drug was observed for 12 h. Examination of the sequential X-ray images taken during the study clearly indicated that the optimized formulation remained buoyant and uniformly distributed in the gastric contents for a period of 12 h. In ethanol-induced ulcer model, drug-loaded Microballoon-treated group showed significant (p < 0.01) ulcer protection index as compared to free drug-treated group. CONCLUSION: Nizatidine-loaded floating microballoons may serve as a useful drug delivery system for prolonging the gastric residence time and effective treatment of gastric ulcers.

Nizatidine ameliorates gastroparesis in Parkinson's disease: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to perform an open trial of the effects of nizatidine (NZT), a selective histamine H2-receptor antagonist and a cholinomimetic, on gastroparesis in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, using objective parameters given by a gastric emptying study using a (13) C-sodium acetate expiration breath test. METHODS: Twenty patients with PD were enrolled in the study. There were 13 men and 7 women; aged 68.0 ± 7.72 years; disease duration 5.50 ± 3.62 years. All patients underwent the breath test and a gastrointestinal questionnaire before and after 3 months of administration of NZT at 300 mg/day. Statistical analysis was performed by Student t test. RESULTS: NZT was well tolerated by all patients and none had abdominal pain or other adverse effects. NZT significantly shortened Tmax ((13) C) (the peak time of the (13) C-dose-excess curve) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although this is a pilot study, we found a significant shortening of gastric emptying time after administration of NZT in PD patients.

Impact of sleep disorders in Japanese patients with functional dyspepsia (FD): nizatidine improves clinical symptoms, gastric emptying and sleep disorders in FD patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The association between functional dyspepsia (FD) and sleep disorders has yet to be studied in detail. The aim of this study is to evaluate the risk factors associated with sleep disorders and the clinical response to nizatidine therapy for sleep disorders in Rome III-based FD patients. METHODS: We enrolled 94 FD patients and 52 healthy volunteers. We used Rome III criteria to evaluate upper abdominal symptoms, and the Self-Rating Questionnaire for Depression scores to determine depression status. Sleep disorder was evaluated using Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores, and degree of anxiety by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Gastric motility was evaluated. Thirty-four FD patients were treated with nizatidine (300 mg/day) or placebo for 4 weeks in a crossover trial. The primary end point of this study was to determine whether nizatidine could improve clinical symptoms and sleep disorders in FD patients. RESULTS: The global PSQI score for FD patients was significantly (P < 0.001) higher compared with healthy volunteers. There were significant correlations between global PSQI scores and total Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale and Self-Rating Questionnaire for Depression scores (P < 0.001, P < 0.0001, respectively) in FD patients than in healthy volunteers. We found significant relationships between subjective sleep quality and both Tmax and T1/2 values in FD patients. Nizatidine significantly improved certain clinical symptoms, gastric emptying, and global PSQI score compared with placebo treatment. CONCLUSION: Sleep disorders in FD patients correlated significantly with both clinical symptoms of dyspepsia and depression compared with healthy volunteers. Nizatidine significantly improved gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, gastric emptying, and sleep disorders in FD patients.

Nizatidine improves clinical symptoms and gastric emptying in patients with functional dyspepsia accompanied by impaired gastric emptying.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this crossover study, we investigated whether nizatidine, a H(2)-receptor antagonist, can alleviate clinical symptoms and gastric emptying in patients with Rome III-based functional dyspepsia (FD) with or without impaired gastric emptying. METHODS: We enrolled 30 patients presenting with FD symptoms (epigastric pain syndrome, n = 6; postprandial distress syndrome, n = 24). Rome III-based FD patients were treated with nizatidine (300 mg/day) or placebo for 4 weeks in a crossover trial. Gastric motility was mainly evaluated with the T(max) value using the (13)C-acetate breath test. Meal-related symptoms were defined as postprandial fullness and early satiation. Gastroesophageal symptom was defined as a burning feeling rising from the stomach or lower chest up toward the neck. Acylated- and desacylated ghrelin levels were evaluated by the ELISA method. Clinical symptoms, gastric emptying and ghrelin levels were evaluated at three different points during the study (pretreatment, after 4 weeks former treatment and after 4 weeks later treatment). The primary end point of this study was to determine whether nizatidine would improve clinical symptoms and gastric emptying in FD patients with or without impaired gastric emptying via affecting ghrelin levels. RESULTS: Meal-related symptoms of the patients treated with nizatidine improved significantly (21/30; 70%) compared to those treated with placebo (3/30; 10%). In addition, nizatidine treatment also significantly improved gastroesophageal symptoms (16/30; 53%) compared to those treated with placebo (0/30; 0%). Nizatidine treatment in patients with FD accompanied by impaired gastric emptying significantly improved clinical symptoms and T(max) value as a marker of gastric emptying (10/11, 91%; 9/11, 82%) compared to placebo therapy, respectively. There were no significant differences in ghrelin levels between nizatidine treatment and placebo therapy. CONCLUSION: Nizatidine administration significantly improved both gastric emptying and clinical symptoms in FD patients with impaired gastric emptying.

Onset of relief of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease: post hoc analysis of two previously published studies comparing pantoprazole 20 mg once daily with nizatidine or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily.

BACKGROUND: Systematic assessments of the onset of symptom relief in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This work evaluated the time interval until complete symptom relief from heartburn (including both daytime and nighttime heartburn) and acid regurgitation in patients with GERD or endoscopy-negative GERD (NERD) during the first 7 days of treatment with pantoprazole, nizatidine, or ranitidine. METHODS: This was a post hoc reanalysis of data from 2 previously published, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group studies. Male and female patients aged >or=18 years with endoscopically proven GERD or NERD (Hetzel-Dent grade >or= [trial 1] or Savary-Miller grade 0 or 1 [trial 2]) were enrolled. Patients were required to have had reflux symptoms for the previous >or=3 months, with >or=1 symptom (ie, daytime heartburn, nighttime heartburn, or acid regurgitation) for >or=4 of the past 7 days in trial 1 or >or=1 symptom (ie, heartburn, acid eructation, or painful swallowing) of at least moderate intensity for the past 3 days in trial 2. The treatments were pantoprazole 20 mg once daily in both trials, nizatidine 150 mg BID in trial 1, or ranitidine 150 mg BID in trial 2. Presence and severity of symptoms were recorded on daily diary cards using a 4-point Likert-type scale. RESULTS: In total, 114 patients from trial 1 and 307 patients from trial 2 were evaluable for heartburn, and 58 patients from trial l and 271 patients from trial 2 were evaluable for acid regurgitation. In both studies, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between pantoprazole recipients and nizatidine or ranitidine recipients, with the exception of more men than women in trial 1 compared with trial 2 (P < 0.001). On day 2 of trial 1, 23 (39.0%) and 8 (14.5%) of pantoprazole and nizatidine recipients, respectively, experienced complete relief from heartburn (P < 0.01). The differences between groups remained statistically significant through day 7, when 28 (47.5%) and 8 (14.5 %) of pantoprazole and nizatidine recipients had no heartburn (P < 0.001). There were no differences in control of acid regurgitation over 7 days with pantoprazole compared with nizatidine or ranitidine, except at days 2 and 4 of trial 1, when significantly more patients receiving pantoprazole experienced relief from acid regurgitation than those receiving nizatidine (day 2: 60.6% [n = 20] vs 20.0% [n = 5], P < 0.01; day 4: 48.5% [n =16] vs 24.0% [n = 6], P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this post hoc reanalysis of data from 2 previously published clinical trials, use of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily was associated with effective early relief from heartburn and acid regurgitation among these patients with GERD and NERD; relief occurred as fast as and, in some cases, even faster than that seen with nizatidine or ranitidine.

Little necessity of acid inhibition against proton pump inhibitor rebound effects and prior helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in gastric ulcer patients: a randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy increases acid secretion and promotes the development of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and reflux esophagitis (RE). Rebound acid hypersecretion develops after the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). We examined the clinical necessity of acid inhibitors to prevent GERD or RE caused by PPI rebound phenomenon and prior H. pylori eradication therapy. METHODOLOGY: We enrolled 39 patients who underwent successful H. pylori eradication therapy prior to endoscopic mucosal resection of gastric cancer. After 8-week rabeprazole treatment for iatrogenic ulcer, they were randomly divided into two groups (who took nizatidine (group N) and sofalcone (group S)), and took each for 16 weeks, we compared RE/GERD symptoms with the baseline by endoscopy and QUEST score. RESULTS: All patients had corpus atrophy in which there was no difference between the two groups. Only 1 patient in group S (5.9%) developed symptomatic GERD, and 1 patient in group N (4.5%) developed RE. CONCLUSIONS: In severe atrophic gastritis patients, there is little clinical necessity of acid inhibitors to prevent GERD/RE caused by PPI rebound and prior H. pylori eradication therapy.

Does the use of nizatidine, as a pro-kinetic agent, improve gastric emptying in patients post-oesophagectomy?

PURPOSE: Delayed gastric emptying following oesophagectomy is common and can often lead to weight loss, malnutrition and a poor quality of life. Animal models have shown that nizatidine, a histamine H2-receptor antagonist, has pro-kinetic properties and can accelerate gastric emptying. Patients post-oesophagectomy require long-term acid suppression medication; if nizatidine can improve gastric emptying, it can be adopted for its dual pharmacological actions. METHODOLOGY: Twenty consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this trial following oesophagectomy. All patients were more than 6 months post-surgery and had no evidence of recurrent cancer. A baseline nuclear medicine scan following a radiolabelled meal was conducted and then repeated after 1 week of nizatidine (150 mg bd) treatment. Quality of life and eating comfort data were collected. RESULTS: Oesophagectomy causes a significant delay in gastric emptying. Early satiety (80%) and reflux (65%) were the most common post-operative complaints. The percentage of food remaining in the stomach at 60 min post-meal was significantly more than normal values in both the pre- and post-nizatidine studies. There is no advantage in using nizatidine as a pro-kinetic agent. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired gastric emptying post-surgery causes a change in eating habits. Patients in this study did not lose a significant amount of weight despite all indicating worse eating comfort. Patients required more regular meals or snacks throughout the day and avoid foods that are difficult to swallow. It is likely that gastric motility only plays a small role in the emptying process and gravity combined with appropriate drainage procedures (pyloroplasty/pyloromyotomy) at the time of surgery are more important.

Effect of the H2 receptor antagonist nizatidine on xerostomia in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome.

In Sjögren's syndrome (SS), oral dryness (xerostomia) is frequently the most bothersome symptom. An H2 histamine receptor antagonist is often administered to SS patients to treat associated superficial gastritis. The aim of the present study was to assess the ability of nizatidine, an H2 receptor antagonist, to also relieve xerostomia in patients with primary SS. Twenty-seven patients with primary SS were randomly assigned to receive nizatidine (n=14, 300 mg a day) or another H2 blocker, famotidine (n=13, 40 mg a day; control), were followed for eight weeks, and were asked for both subjective and objective assessments of oral dryness using a visual analog scale (VAS; 1-100 mm) and the Saxon's test, respectively. Patients receiving oral nizatidine, but not famotidine, obtained significant objective relief from their xerostomia (Saxon's test; baseline, 0.57 g/2 min; after eight weeks, 0.90 g/2 min, P<0.05). VAS scores indicated that nizatidine also provides mild improvement (20% improvement over baseline) of xerostomia-related clinical conditions, including mouth dryness and difficulty in chewing, tasting and swallowing food. Both drugs were generally well tolerated, without adverse effects. The present preliminary study suggests that nizatidine may represent a new option for the treatment of xerostomia in SS.

Nizatidine enhances salivary secretion in patients with dry mouth.

OBJECTIVE: It was reported that salivary secretion increased in 30 volunteers with administered nizatidine. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether or not nizatidine enhances salivary secretion and improves the function of salivary glands in patients with dry mouth. METHODS: Both basal and stimulated salivary secretions were measured before and after the administration of nizatidine for a month in 18 healthy adult volunteers and 38 patients with dry mouth. In 6/38 patients, salivary gland scintigraphy was performed. RESULTS: After the administration of nizatidine for a month, salivary secretions significantly increased in the control and dry mouth patient groups compared to the pretreatment baseline. In addition, 25 of 38 dry mouth patients showed subjective improvements of oral dryness. In 3/4 patients, the function of salivary glands was improved on salivary gland scintigraphy. CONCLUSION: Nizatidine may reactivate salivary gland cells and be useful in the treatment of patients with dry month.

Nizatidine and gastric emptying in functional dyspepsia.

In clinical practice, H2-receptor antagonists, including nizatidine, in addition to their use in the treatment of peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux, are also useful in alleviating dyspeptic symptoms. Patients with functional dyspepsia show a tendency to delayed gastric emptying. Results of preliminary studies have demonstrated that nizatidine has a prokinetic effect due to its cholinergic properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of nizatidine on gastric emptying in patients with functional dyspepsia. Sixteen patients with dyspeptic symptoms referred for gastroscopy by primary care physicians were enrolled in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over study. They received nizatidine 150 mg twice daily or placebo for 2 months. After a 1-month washout period, the 2-month treatment was repeated, with these patients acting as their own controls. Gastric emptying was measured by scintigraphy, and dyspeptic symptoms and quality of life were evaluated at the end of both treatment periods. Gastric emptying of solids during nizatidine therapy was prolonged (T1/2 110.1 +/- 76.7 vs. 65.6 +/- 23.2 min, P = 0.03), but nizatidine had no effect on gastric emptying of liquids. Nizatidine improved the symptom scores and seven of eight aspects of quality of life - but not significantly. In conclusion, nizatidine decreases the gastric emptying rate of solids without having a significant effect on symptoms or quality of life in functional dyspepsia.

Effect of pantoprazole in older patients with erosive esophagitis.

Several studies suggest that older adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are more likely to develop complications, including erosive esophagitis, but it is unclear whether erosive esophagitis is more difficult to treat in older patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if adults > or = 65 years with erosive esophagitis are more difficult to treat than younger adults. The study was a post hoc analysis of two double-blind, randomized, multicenter trials of patients with erosive esophagitis. Patients received pantoprazole 40 mg once daily, nizatidine 150 mg twice daily or placebo. Patients were evaluated for endoscopic healing at 4 and 8 weeks. Patients recorded typical reflux symptoms using a daily diary to note presence or absence of symptoms. Results showed that 44, 13 and 11 patients > or = 65 years and 210, 69, and 71 patients < 65 received pantoprazole 40 mg daily, nizatidine 150 mg twice daily, or placebo, respectively. Eighty-six percent (86%[76%, 97% CI]) of older and 83% (78%, 88% CI) of younger pantoprazole-treated patients were healed at 8 weeks; 46% (19%, 73% CI) and 35% (24%, 46% CI) of nizatidine-treated and 27% (1%, 54% CI) and 34% (23%, 45% CI) of placebo-treated were healed at 8 weeks. Median time to persistent absence of GERD-related symptoms was similar for older and younger patients treated with pantoprazole. We conclude that older patients with erosive esophagitis do not appear to have more difficult-to-treat disease. Erosive esophagitis is effectively healed and GERD symptoms are controlled in older patients using pantoprazole 40 mg daily.

Weight gain management in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with olanzapine in association with nizatidine

OBJECTIVE: Weight gain is associated with treatment with many psychotropic agents. Nizatidine, H2 receptor antagonist, has been proposed to have weight-reducing effects. This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of nizatidine in reducing/limiting weight gain in patients with schizophrenia who have been under treatment with olanzapine. METHOD: Patients receiving olanzapine (2 to 6 months) and weight gain > 5 percent of their body weight during olanzapine treatment were randomly assigned to receive nizatidine 600 mg or placebo for up to 12 weeks. Change in psychopathology was assessed using Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores from baseline to endpoint. Safety was assessed using the Safety Assessed Software, assessment of glucose and lipid blood levels, and treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: Out of 54 patients enrolled in this analysis, 45 completed the protocol. The mean weight change prior randomization was 7.6 kg and 7.3 kg for those randomized to placebo and nizatidine, respectively (p = 0.828). Patients receiving placebo and nizatidine had a mean weight gain of 12.3 percent (0.7 kg) and 12 percent (1.1 kg) from baseline to endpoint, respectively (p = 0.9). Patients from both groups experienced a statistically significant decrease on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale mean score from baseline to endpoint. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 18.5 percent and 25.9 percent on the placebo and nizatidine group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in glucose and lipid blood levels from baseline to endpoint and between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The concomitant use of olanzapine with nizatidine was not effective in controlling weight gain in patients who had previously gained weight during treatment with olanzapine when compared to placebo.

OBJETIVO: Ganho de peso está associado ao tratamento com inúmeros psicotrópicos. O uso de nizatidina, um antagonista H2, pode estar associado à redução de peso. Este foi um ensaio clínico aleatorizado, duplo-cego, controlado com placebo, de 12 semanas, desenhado para avaliar a eficácia da nizatidina em reduzir/limitar o ganho de peso em pacientes com esquizofrenia recebendo olanzapina. MÉTODO: Pacientes recebendo olanzapina (entre dois e seis meses) e com ganho de peso > que 5 por cento desde o inicio do tratamento foram aleatorizados para receber nizatidina 600 mg ou placebo. Alterações psicopatológicas foram avaliadas usando-se a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total. A segurança foi avaliada por meio da pontuação na Safety Assessed Software, avaliação dos valores de glicemia e lipídios e a incidência de eventos adversos decorrentes do tratamento. RESULTADOS: Dos 54 pacientes incluídos na análise, 45 completaram o protocolo. A alteração média de peso antes da aleatorização foi de 7,6 kg e 7,3 kg nos pacientes aleatorizados para placebo e nizatidina, respectivamente (p = 0,828). Pacientes recebendo placebo e nizatidina tiveram, respectivamente, ganho médio de peso de 12,3 por cento (7 kg) e 12 por cento (1,1 kg) ao longo do estudo (p = 0,9). Ambos os grupos apresentaram diminuição estatisticamente significativa na pontuação média da Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Eventos adversos emergentes do tratamento foram relatados por 18,5 por cento e 25,9 por cento dos pacientes recebendo placebo e nizatidina, respectivamente. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa nos níveis glicêmicos e lipídicos do início ao final do estudo ou entre os grupos de tratamento. CONCLUSÕES: Comparado ao placebo, o uso concomitante de olanzapina e nizatidina não foi eficaz em controlar o peso em pacientes com ganho prévio de peso durante o tratamento com olanzapina.

Weight gain management in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with olanzapine in association with nizatidine.

OBJECTIVE: Weight gain is associated with treatment with many psychotropic agents. Nizatidine, H2 receptor antagonist, has been proposed to have weight-reducing effects. This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of nizatidine in reducing/limiting weight gain in patients with schizophrenia who have been under treatment with olanzapine. METHOD: Patients receiving olanzapine (2 to 6 months) and weight gain >or= 5% of their body weight during olanzapine treatment were randomly assigned to receive nizatidine 600 mg or placebo for up to 12 weeks. Change in psychopathology was assessed using Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores from baseline to endpoint. Safety was assessed using the Safety Assessed Software, assessment of glucose and lipid blood levels, and treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: Out of 54 patients enrolled in this analysis, 45 completed the protocol. The mean weight change prior randomization was 7.6 kg and 7.3 kg for those randomized to placebo and nizatidine, respectively (p = 0.828). Patients receiving placebo and nizatidine had a mean weight gain of 12.3% (0.7 kg) and 12% (1.1 kg) from baseline to endpoint, respectively (p = 0.9). Patients from both groups experienced a statistically significant decrease on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale mean score from baseline to endpoint. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 18.5% and 25.9% on the placebo and nizatidine group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in glucose and lipid blood levels from baseline to endpoint and between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The concomitant use of olanzapine with nizatidine was not effective in controlling weight gain in patients who had previously gained weight during treatment with olanzapine when compared to placebo.

Nizatidine for the treatment of pediatric gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: an open-label, multiple-dose, randomized, multicenter clinical trial in 210 children.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is reflux that produces damage or troubling symptoms, afflicts approximately 7% of infants and children to the extent that administration of physician-directed pharmacotherapy is warranted. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed in conjunction with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of nizatidine, in different doses and formulations, including a newly formulated premade oral solution, for pediatric GERD. METHODS: Children aged 5 days through 18 years were recruited to this 8-week, open-label, multiple-dose, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. The original study design specified that patients aged 5 days through 12 years at study start be given a nizatidine capsule dissolved in infant formula or apple juice depending on patient age ("extemporaneous solution"). Children 13 through 18 years old were to be given the "adult dose" of nizatidine capsules 150 mg BID regardless of body weight. All patients aged < 13 years were randomized in blocks of 4 between 2 dose levels (2.5 and 5 mg/kg per dose BID). A protocol amendment during the study added a newly formulated, more pediatric-appropriate, premade oral solution that was developed at the request of the FDA. This premade formulation ("oral solution") was to replace the extemporaneous solution mixed in infant formula or apple juice. Subsequently, an additional 44 children aged < 13 years old were enrolled in the study and randomized to receive the new nizatidine oral solution for 8 weeks at the same 2 dose levels as used for the extemporaneous solution. Outcome data at 4 and 8 weeks included adverse events (AEs) (severity, relation to study drug, and any relationship to study withdrawal) and effectiveness (investigators' assessment of changes in reflux symptoms and overall physical well-being, and parent/child assessment of change in antacid use). Formal statistical analyses were not planned, but post hoc chi-square analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 214 children enrolled, 210 (98%) intent-to-treat (ITT) patients received > or = 1 dose; of these, 173 (82%) completed 8 weeks of study. At least 77% were compliant (ie, medicated on > or = 75% of days). Of the ITT patients, 37 did not complete 8 weeks due to insufficient response, AEs (regardless of relationship to study drug), or other reasons. Although 292 AEs occurred in 115 patients, 277 (95%) were mild to moderate and 15 (5%) were severe. Most of the AEs in these children studied during the winter were related to infectious illnesses. Only 4 serious AEs occurred; 3 were unrelated to study drug. The fourth AE--considered possibly related--was worsening sickle cell anemia 18 days after medication discontinuation. Approximately 30% of patients became asymptomatic after 8 weeks of treatment, regardless of dosing or formulation, and despite reduction of antacid use in half of the patients. No clear superiority of any dose or formulation was demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: This large study, although limited by its open-label design and post hoc analyses, supports the tolerability and effectiveness of 8 weeks of treatment with nizatidine in children aged 5 days through 18 years. AE incidence and severity were as expected for children during the winter season. There was an overall improvement in symptoms and a decrease in antacid use. Formulation did not appear to alter tolerability or effectiveness assessments: the premade solution, extemporaneous solution, and capsule provided comparable symptomatic relief with no disproportionate adverse reactions.

Comparative study of nizatidine and famotidine for maintenance therapy of erosive esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic effect of combined administration of prokinetics and histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) in gastroesophageal reflux disease is reported to be superior to that of monotherapy with H2RA alone. In addition to its acid-suppressing effect, the H2RA nizatidine also has a prokinetic action by suppressing acetylcholine esterase. The present multicenter, randomized controlled study was performed to investigate whether nizatidine is superior to famotidine, which does not suppress acetylcholine esterase activity, in maintenance therapy for erosive esophagitis. In addition, the question as to whether the grade of erosive esophagitis affects the non-recurrence rate during the maintenance therapy with H2RA was also investigated. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with endoscopically healed erosive esophagitis after 8 weeks of initial treatment with proton pump inhibitors were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in the nizatidine group were treated with 150 mg nizatidine twice a day (b.i.d.), while patients in the famotidine group were treated with 20 mg famotidine b.i.d. for 6 months. At the end of therapy, and at the time when patients complained of symptoms, endoscopic investigations were repeated to find out whether the esophagitis had recurred. RESULTS: Nizatidine produced a significantly higher non-recurrence rate than famotidine (P = 0.049 in intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis). This difference of remission rate between nizatidine and famotidine was observed mainly in grade B esophagitis (P = 0.016 in ITT analysis). CONCLUSION: Nizatidine is a more effective H2RA than famotidine in the maintenance therapy of patients with reflux esophagitis.