Search

In September 2019, ranitidine and nizatidine were suggested to contain N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic substance. People have since been concerned about the potential impact of ranitidine/nizatidine use on the risk of cancer.The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of cancer among people receiving ranitidine or nizatidine compared with other histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2 blockers) [cimetidine, famotidine, roxatidine, and lafutidine].In the Japan Medical Data Center claims database (comprising people aged 75 years) from 2005 to 2018, we identified new adult users of H2 blockers and classified them into ranitidine/nizatidine users and other H2 blocker users. We estimated the incidence of cancer diagnosis in each group and conducted a multivariable Cox regression analysis.We identified 113,745 new users of ranitidine/nizatidine (median age 41.2 years [interquartile range 31.7-51.1]; 49.1% men; median follow-up 2.4 years [1.1-4.5]) and 503,982 new users of other H2 blockers (median age 40.9 years [31.1-51.2]; 51.0% men; median follow-up 2.3 years [0.9-4.2]). The incidence rate of cancer diagnosis was 6.39 (95% confidence interval 6.13-6.66) cases per 1000 person-years (top three sites: breast 14.8%; colorectal 14.6%; and stomach 11.5%) in the ranitidine/nizatidine group and 6.17 (6.05-6.30) cases per 1000 person-years (colorectal 14.7%; breast 13.5%; and stomach 11.2%) in the other H2 blockers group. The adjusted hazard ratio (ranitidine/nizatidine users vs other H2 blocker users) was 1.02 (0.98-1.07). The results were similar by follow-up length, by cancer site, and when ranitidine and nizatidine users were separately compared with the other H2 blockers group. By cumulative dose, the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.03 (0.98-1.08) from 1 to 180 defined daily doses (DDDs), 1.00 (0.73-1.39) from 181 to 365 DDDs, 0.95 (0.61-1.48) from 366 to 730 DDDs, and 0.83 (0.45-1.55) at 730 DDDs.We found no evidence that ranitidine/nizatidine is associated with an increased risk of cancer, although further studies with more accurate measurement of exposure, inclusion of older people, and longer follow-up may be needed.

Background The present research was aimed in developing gastroretentive tablets of Nizatidine, in order to increase the bioavailability of the drug. Nizatidine belongs to BCS class 3 and thus formulating into gastroretentive tablets helps to achieve a better therapeutic effect. There were no reports available on the use of Mimosa gum in the design of gastroretentive drug delivery systems. Response surface methodology was employed to optimize the formulation with suitable experimental design. The goal of the response surface methodology was to obtain a regression model and to find a suitable approximation for the true functional relationship between the response and the set of independent variables. Hence, the statistical approach like full factorial design was utilized to obtain optimized formulation with a smaller number of experiments. Results DSC study justified no interaction of the drug with excipients. The floating lag time was observed to be less than 20 s, total floating time was in the range of 8–24 h, hardness ranges from 4 to 5 kg/cm2, and friability was less than 1%. Dissolution data indicated that the higher viscosity of Mimosa (2%) delayed the drug release for extended period of time up to 23 h when compared to lower viscosity Mimosa (1%), which controlled the release of the drug up to 12 h only. The ‘n’ values of all the prepared formulations were found to be 0.59 to 0.81 indicating that the release mechanism followed anomalous (non-Fickian) diffusion. The optimal values of independent test variables were obtained from the overlay plots. The optimized formulation of Mimosa gum (2%) (M2%opt) contained 170 mg of polymer and 25.5 mg (15%) of sodium bicarbonate. Similarly, the optimized formulation of Mimosa (1%) (M1%opt) contained 255 mg of polymer and 34 mg (10%) of sodium bicarbonate. Conclusion The results clearly indicated that the optimized formulations followed zero-order release kinetics with diffusion mechanism as per the predicted theoretical release rate confirming the suitability of the predicted theoretical release profile.

The reactions of cisplatin with nizatidine and ranitidine were studied in D2O at pD 7.4 and 298 K by means of 1H NMR spectroscopy. The second order rate constants, k2, for the reaction of cisplatin with nizatidine is (2.71 ± 0.11) × 10−4 M−1 s−1, and for the reaction with ranitidine (6.72 ± 0.17) × 10−4 M−1 s−1. The reactions of nizatidine and ranitidine were also studied with other Pd(II) and Pt(II) complexes. The set of the complexes was selected because of their difference in reactivity, steric hindrance, and binding properties.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of two nizatidine capsules, Axid (Lilly Korea Pharm. Co., Ltd.) and Nex (Bi-nex Pharm. Co., Ltd.), according to the guidelines of Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA). The nizatidine release from the two nizatidine capsules in vitro was tested using KP Apparatus method with various dissolution media (pH 1.2, 4.0, 6.8 buffer solutions and water). The dissolution prefers of two nizatidine capsules were very similar at all dissolution media. Twenty four normal male volunteers were divided into two groups with a randomized 22 crossover study. After two capsules (300 mg nizatidine) were orally administrated, blood was taken and the concentrations of nizatidine in serum were determined using HPLC with UV detector. The pharmacokinetic parameters such as , and were determined. The result showed that the differences in , and between two nizatidine capsules based on the Axid were -6.16%, -8.26% and -1.82%, respectively. There were no sequence effects between two capsules in these parameter. The 90% confidence intervals using logarithmically transformed data were within the acceptance range of log(0.8) to log(125)(e.g., and for and respectively), indicting that Nex capsule is bioequivalent to Axid capsule.

Objective To determine whether immediate concurrent feedback (ICF) focused on inpatient omeprazole prescribing achieved more rational and cost-effective antiulcer drug prescribing and usage. Methods In a 1400-bed teaching hospital, an audit (by specially trained personnel) was conducted to monitor inpatient prescribing of omeprazole (1) in preference to H2-antagonists and other drugs according to agreed criteria (Helicobacter pylori eradication, severe reflux esophagitis, rapid ulcer healing deemed urgent because of severe symptoms or complications, high-dose steroid therapy of ≥30 mg/day prednisolone) and (2) appropriateness of intravenous dosing (oral route not feasible or contraindicated). After baseline monitoring for 1 month, followed by relevant antiulcer drug therapy education, ICF was instituted for 1 year. This entailed explanatory memoranda requesting a change in prescribing issued to the respective medical teams of patients whose omeprazole prescription did not “conform.” The main outcomes of the study were omeprazole prescription numbers per month and the proportion conforming, defined daily doses of antiulcer drugs used and corresponding expenditures, and pertinent antiulcer drug utilization data from 9 other local hospitals. Results Baseline omeprazole prescribing conformed in 32 of 173 (18%) of the patients compared with 451 of 546 (83%) during institution of ICF (P < 0001; χ2 test). Correspondingly, average overall omeprazole and ranitidine usage (inpatient and outpatient) and expenditure decreased (44% and 45%, respectively); collectively, use of less expensive alternatives increased about 61%. Estimated savings averaged about HK$150,000 ($20,000) per month. No comparable changes in usage were noted in 9 other local hospitals. Conclusion Regarding hospital antiulcer drugs, this ICF strategy was associated with more rational prescribing and usage, and an important saving of resources. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (1998) 64, 569–574; doi

Histamine type 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs)have been found to alter gastric motility. The aims ofthis study were to determine if H2RAs affect antralcontractility in vitro and the mechanism of this effect. Guinea pig antral muscle strips werepinned in an organ bath after removing the mucosa, andcircular muscle tension was measured using an isometricforce transducer. Gastric myocytes were isolated from guinea pig stomach using collagenasedigestion, and cell lengths were measured using an imageanalysis system. In muscle strips, ranitidine andnizatidine increased the amplitude of spontaneous phasic antral contractions in aconcentration-dependent fashion with thresholdconcentrations of 5 μM. The order of potency for theH2RAs was ranitidine = nizatidine ≫ cimetidine >famotidine. The contractile effects of ranitidine and nizatidine werereduced, but not abolished, by tetrodo- toxin andomega-conotoxin GVIA and nearly abolished by atropine.In isolated cells, ranitidine and nizatidine, but notfamotidine or cimetidine, induced concentration-dependentcell shortening, with maximal shortening at 10 μM.These contractile effects of ranitidine and nizatidinein isolated cells were inhibited by atropine. Ranitidine and nizatidine increase antral contractility;this effect appears to be mediated by an interactionbetween ranitidine and nizatidine on cholinergicpathways with both direct effects on smooth musclecholinergic receptors and indirect effects by increasingcholinergic neurotransmission.

Nizatidine, a new histamine-2-receptor antagonist, stimulates gastrointestinal motility in dogs and gastric emptying of liquids in rats. Effect of nizatidine on gastric emptying of a solid meal was investigated using a novel gastric emptying model in rats. Male Wistar rats (weighing 200-300 g) were supplied with powdered food containing 30 w/w% barium 14 hr before the beginning of the experiment and x-ray photography of rat stomach was taken under light ether anesthesia. Gastric emptying was assessed by percentage of a decrease in area 30 min after drug was injected intraperitoneally. There was a positive correlation between the area of the gastric outline and the weight of the gastric contents (r = 0.94, P < 0.01). Ether anesthesia itself did not affect gastric emptying. Nizatidine increased gastric emptying dose-dependently (emptied percentage; vehicle: 4.9 +/- 1.5%, 1 mg/kg: 7.2 +/- 0.4%, 3 mg/kg: 10.4 +/- 2.0%, 10 mg/kg: 16.7 +/- 4.9%, 30 mg/kg: 25.7 +/- 7.4%). N-Desmethyl nizatidine (NDM) also stimulated gastric emptying, but nizatidine S-oxide, cimetidine, an famotidine had no significant effects on gastric emptying. Nizatidine and neostigmine, but not NDM, at a subthreshold dose accelerated gastric emptying treated with a low dose of acetylcholine (0.1 mg/kg). Atropine (2 mg/kg, -30 min) did not modulate the gastroprokinetic action of nizatidine, but blocked that of NDM. These findings suggest that this noninvasive method may allow measurement of gastric emptying of solids accurately and that nizatidine and NDM facilitate gastric emptying probably mediated by a direct and/or an indirect (acetylcholinesterase inhibition) cholinergic mechanism.

There are conflicting data on the existence of significant first-pass metabolism of alcohol (ethanol) in the human stomach and its inhibition by histamine H2-receptor antagonists. Alcohol is predominantly metabolised in the liver by the microsomal alcohol oxidising system, alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and a catalase enzyme. Histochemical and kinetic studies have revealed several ADH isoenzymes in the gastric mucosa with different kinetic properties. After small oral doses of alcohol first-pass metabolism in the stomach occurs, as shown by reduced area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) compared with intravenous or intraduodenal administration. The activity of gastric ADH is reduced in women, the elderly, Asian individuals, the fasting state, chronic alcoholism and after gastrectomy. The effect is only present with small (or = 0.3 g/kg) alcohol doses and with a high alcohol concentration. In a number of studies, cimetidine in therapeutic doses over 7 days produced a significant increase in the AUC and in the peak plasma concentration after administration of alcohol 0.15 and 0.30 g/kg. This was related to an inhibition of gastric ADH activity, as shown by in vitro studies. Ranitidine inhibited gastric ADH to a similar extent on a molar basis, but its effect on alcohol levels in vivo was less constant in various studies. Nizatidine also reduced gastric alcohol first-pass metabolism, but famotidine and roxatidine did not show this effect. In other studies, H2-receptor antagonists did not change AUC and peak alcohol concentration. The controversy is not easy to resolve, since a number of the positive studies did not use a placebo-controlled, randomised, crossover design, while some of the negative studies did not exclude habitual alcohol consumers and included Oriental volunteers, although both groups have been shown to lack significant gastric ADH activity. In this case, when first-pass metabolism of alcohol does not exist, this by definition cannot be abolished by H2-antagonists. The inclusion of oral and intravenous dosage data of alcohol is mandatory to positively identify first-pass metabolism in any individuals. The significance of the effect of H2-antagonists on blood alcohol concentrations is minor. It only occurs in young, male, nonalcoholic, non-Asian individuals, and alcohol must be given in a small (social) dose, in a high concentration, and after meals. An increase in alcohol levels in predisposed patients during treatment with some H2-antagonists cannot be excluded, although the likelihood is small. Furthermore, carefully designed studies are needed to clarify fully the significance of this interaction.

H2-receptor antagonists are frequently used in patients with renal insufficiency to treat hyperacidity and resultant peptic ulceration. All H2-antagonists are mainly eliminated by the renal route (glomerular filtration and tubular secretion). Since it is dependent on creatinine clearance (CLCR), elimination will be impaired in renal insufficiency. Protein binding and volumes of distribution (Vd) of H2-antagonists are not significantly altered in patients with renal impairment. Bioavailability (F) is similar in patients with and without renal insufficiency, except for nizatidine, which has an F that is lower in uraemic patients. When given in similar doses, mean peak concentrations (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) are higher in patients with renal insufficiency than in those with normal renal function. Thus, maintenance doses of H2-antagonists should be reduced in line with reductions in CLCR. The time to reach Cmax is similar for all drugs except ranitidine, which has a delayed Cmax. Due to the decreased renal clearance (CLR), elimination half-life (t1/2) is prolonged 3- to 8-fold depending upon the degree of renal failure and the particular drug. H2-antagonists are removed by various dialysis procedures in insignificant amounts. Thus, no dosage supplementation is necessary after any type of dialysis therapy. By means of intragastric long term pH-metry it has been shown that inhibition of gastric acid secretion is prolonged in patients with renal insufficiency.

Study objective: To determine if 150 mg nizatidine twice daily or 300 mg nizatidine at bedtime are similarly effective and to compare each dose with placebo in healing benign gastric ulcers and relieving peptic ulcer symptoms. Methods: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel comparison. The study was conducted at 74 gastroenterology and internal medicine clinics in the United States and Canada. Four hundred fifty-six patients with active benign gastric ulcer documented by endoscopy participated in the study. On the basis of a computer-generated randomization list, patients were assigned sequentially to receive either 150 mg nizatidine twice daily (n = 151), 300 mg nizatidine once daily at bedtime and identically appearing placebo capsules in the morning (n = 153), or placebo capsules twice daily (n = 152). Treatment lasted for 8 weeks unless healing was documented by endoscopy after 4 weeks. Antacid tablets (aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, simethicone combination) were supplied for relief of symptoms. Measurements and main results: Both doses of nizatidine significantly improved healing rates at 8 weeks compared with placebo. Daytime and nighttime symptom severity was improved by both nizatidine regimens at end point (p < 0.015 versus placebo, two-tailed test). Antacid use was similar for all groups in the end point analysis. Patient well-being was significantly better in patients treated with nizatidine than in patients in the placebo group ((p < 0.04, two-tailed test). No clinically significant differences in the incidence of adverse clinical or laboratory events were noted. Conclusion: Nizatidine, 300 mg at bedtime and 150 mg twice daily, resulted in greater healing of benign gastric ulcers than placebo treatment after 8 weeks. Relief of the symptoms of gastric ulcer was significantly better in the patients receiving nizatidine treatment versus placebo treatment. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1992) 52, 307–313; doi:10.1038/clpt.1992.146

In a randomized, multicenter trial, nizatidine 150 mg or 300 mg, or placebo, was administered twice daily for six weeks to 515 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Gelusil antacid tablets were taken as needed for pain. Significantly superior rates of endoscopically proven complete healing (normal-appearing mucosa) versus placebo occurred after three weeks with nizatidine 150 mg, and after six weeks with nizatidine 300 mg. Six-week healing rates were 38.5% for nizatidine 300 mg, 41.1% for nizatidine 150 mg, and 25.8% for placebo. The nizatidine 150 mg treatment group had significantly greater improvement in daytime and nighttime heartburn severity after one day of therapy versus placebo. Twice-daily administration of nizatidine 150 mg or 300 mg provides prompt relief from the major symptom of GERD, heartburn, and complete healing of esophagitis is seen in many patients.

Inhibition of gastric alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) activity by cimetidine results in elevated blood levels of ethanol after moderate consumption. To search for alternative H2-blockers lacking such an effect, we compared cimetidine, ranitidine, nizatidine, and famotidine. They inhibited rat gastric ADH noncompetitively, with a Ki for ethanol oxidation of 0.68 mM for cimetidine, 0.5 mM for ranitidine, 1 mM for nizatidine, and 4.5 mM for famotidine. These concentrations are higher than therapeutic plasma levels, but intracellular concentrations in the gastric mucosa (assessed with [3H]cimetidine and [14C]famotidine) were at least 10- and 2-fold greater than in the blood, respectively. These results suggests that, given at therapeutic doses in vivo, the degree of inhibition by cimetidine and ranitidine should be significant and comparable, that by nizatidine should be smaller, and that by famotidine should be negligible. These drugs also exerted either mixed or competitive inhibition of rat hepatic ADH, but the effects of cimetidine and famotidine were observed at concentrations unlikely to occur in vivo. Thus, in alcoholics and in social drinkers who require treatment with H2-receptor antagonists, famotidine might be preferable to the other H2 blockers tested.

Histamine H2-receptor antagonists are a unique class of compounds. Pharmacologically they are characterised as a family by their ability to inhibit the secretion of gastric acid, and kinetically they are classified as a family by their similarity in absorption, distribution and elimination. All the H2-receptor antagonists exhibit classical competitive drug-receptor interactions, with Schild slope parameters not significantly different from unity. Comparison of the values of the negative logarithm of the molar concentration of antagonist in the presence of which the potency of the agonist is reduced 2-fold (PA2) indicates that famotidine is about 20 to 50 times more potent than cimetidine and 6 to 10 times more potent than ranitidine. To date, famotidine is the most potent among marketed H2-receptor antagonists. Oral absorption of all the H2-receptor antagonists under clinical investigation is fairly rapid. Peak plasma concentrations are usually attained within 1 to 3h after the dose, but a second peak after oral administration has been observed with cimetidine, ranitidine, famotidine, ramixotidine and etintidine. The mean oral bioavailability for the H2-antagonists ranges from 50 to 70%. Reports on the plasma profiles after intravenous administration are available only for cimetidine, ranitidine, famotidine and nizatidine: plasma concentrations of all 4 decline in a biexponential manner. All of the H2-antagonists are eliminated quite rapidly, with a terminal half-life of 1 to 3h and a total body clearance of 24 to 48 L/h. Elimination is mainly attributable to renal excretion, with renal clearances ranging from 13.8 to 30 L/h. As the values for renal clearance greatly exceed the glomerular filtration rate (6 to 7.2 L/h), it is apparent that renal tubular secretion plays an important role. There is a simple, direct correlation between plasma concentrations of H2-receptor antagonists and the inhibition of gastric acid secretion. This implies a rapid equilibration between drug concentration in plasma and at the site of action, and a reversible drug-receptor interaction. Success in correlating the plasma concentration of H2-receptor antagonists and their pharmacological effects stems from reliable and precise measurement of both items. Despite the heterogeneous nature of data sources, 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) values for cimetidine, ranitidine, famotidine, nizatidine, etintidine and roxatidine obtained in vitro appear to be in good agreement with those determined in vivo. These results suggest that at an early stage of development of an H2-receptor antagonist, IC50 determined from in vitro studies may be useful as a first approximation to predict the clinically effective concentration of the new agent.

Drug treatment of gastrointestinal diseases, which was previously limited to the use of antacids, anticholinergics, antispasmodics, cathartics and laxatives, has changed markedly over the past decade. Histamine H2-receptor antagonists (e.g. cimetidine, ranitidine and more recently famotidine and nizatidine) have revolutionised the treatment of peptic acid disorders, but their role is currently challenged by muscarinic-M1-receptor antagonists (e.g. pirenzepine), proton pump inhibitors (e.g. omeprazole), prostaglandin analogues and site-protective drugs (e.g. colloidal bismuth subcitrate and sucralfate). Newer anti-emetics with prokinetic properties (e.g. metoclopramide, domperidone and cisapride) have also been introduced in the management of gastrointestinal motility disturbances, and new anti-inflammatory salicylates (e.g. olsalazine and mesalazine) have been developed for the treatment of chronic inflammatory bowel diseases. Finally, diphenoxylate and loperamide have gained wide clinical application as nonspecific antidiarrhoeal agents. The basic pharmacokinetic properties of the above agents are briefly reviewed with the main emphasis on the newer and more important drugs in current use. Furthermore, the effects of age and disease on pharmacokinetics, in addition to drug interaction potentials and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships, are discussed. The anti-inflammatory salicylates, nonspecific antidiarrhoeal agents, laxatives and cathartics will be dealt with in Part II.

Purpose Histamine H2-antagonists, ranitidine and nizatidine, are frequently used for the treatment of hyperacidity and peptic ulceration. Although these agents are mainly eliminated by renal route, the fraction of renal clearance of ranitidine (70%) was greater than that of nizatidine(60%). This study was undertaken to examine whether the pharmacokinetic profiles of ranitidine and nizatidine differed during a repeated dosing in very elderly patients (>80 years old). Methods Ranitidine (150mg) or nizatidine (150mg) was given twice a day in 10 female very elderly patients (mean CLcr 67 ml/min) for 14 days. This study was performed by a randomized, cross-over design with a wash-out period of 14 days. Pharmacokinetic profiles were determined after 1st (on day 1) and 27th (on day 14) dosings of each agent. Results The maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUC) were significantly greater after 27th than after 1st dosings in the ranitidine, but not in the nizatidine trials. The accumulation of ranitidine in plasma tended to be greater than that of nizatidine. Conclusion These results suggest that nizatidine is more safe for the repeated treatment in the very elderly patients. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2004) 75, P10–P10; doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2003.11.035

Nizatidine is an H2-receptor antagonist which in animal studies was more active on a weight-for-weight basis than cimetidine in inhibiting basal and stimulated gastric acid secretion. Similarly, studies in humans have confirmed that nizatidine is a potent inhibitor of basal, nocturnal and stimulated gastric acid secretion. As might be expected at this stage of its development, published therapeutic experience with nizatidine is limited. Nevertheless, multicentre therapeutic trials have shown that nizatidine 300mg at bedtime or 150mg twice daily is significantly more effective than placebo for healing active duodenal ulcer, and is apparently as effective as standard doses of ranitidine in increasing the rate of healing of both duodenal and gastric ulcers, and as effective as a standard dose of cimetidine in active duodenal ulcer. When used prophylactically a single 150mg dose of nizatidine at night produces a decrease in the incidence of ulcer recurrence compared with placebo, and a similar rate of decrease to that achieved with ranitidine 150mg. Nizatidine is well tolerated. Unlike cimetidine it does not have any antiandrogenic effects or alter the hepatic metabolism of drugs. However, only wider clinical experience with nizatidine can accurately determine its relative efficacy and tolerability compared with other antiulcer therapy. Thus, early clinical experience suggests that nizatidine is a useful alternative to the histamine H2-receptor antagonists presently in clinical use.

Since H2-receptor antagonists are widely and successfully used in the treatment of peptic ulcer, several alternatives to the standard agents cimetidine and ranitidine have been developed. Promising 'new' candidates might be famotidine and nizatidine. For proper selection of the appropriate drug, its pharmacokinetic properties and interaction potential should be known. All 'old' and 'new' H2-receptor blockers are eliminated relatively rapidly (t 1/2 ranges from 1.5 to 4 hours), mainly by the renal route (glomerular filtration and tubular secretion). They exhibit a linear disposition and their distribution is similar. Absorption is most complete for nizatidine, whereas famotidine demonstrates the lowest effective plasma concentrations. Since etintidine shares the same imidazole ring structure as cimetidine, it can also impair oxidative drug metabolism in the liver. In this respect, the non-interacting famotidine and nizatidine (like ranitidine) offer a definite advantage. Based on their very similar pharmacokinetic and interaction profiles, these 2 H2-receptor antagonists might be regarded as alternatives to the older drugs in this group, and at least some economic benefits might result from the competition they will provide.

To test the hypothesis that renal insufficiency alters nizatidine disposition, we determined the pharmacokinetics of nizatidine and its major metabolite after a single oral dose in normal volunteers and patients with various degrees of renal dysfunction, after a single intravenous dose in normal volunteers and patients with severe renal failure and during hemodialysis. After intravenous administration the elimination half-life increased from 1.5 +/- 0.2 hours in normal volunteers to 6.9 +/- 3.3 hours in patients with renal failure. The plasma clearance decreased from 0.59 +/- 0.07 L/kg/hr in normal volunteers to 0.14 +/- 0.02 L/kg/hr in patients with renal failure. Nizatidine bioavailability was nearly 100% in normal volunteers but decreased to 75% in patients with renal failure. The volume of distribution was 1.3 +/- 0.1 L/kg in normal volunteers and was not different in patients with renal failure. Nizatidine protein binding was about 30% in normal and uremic plasma. The drug was not substantially removed by hemodialysis. Patients with creatinine clearances less than 50 ml/min/1.73 m2 should receive 150 mg nizatidine once each evening. Patients with creatinine clearances less than 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 should receive 150 mg nizatidine every other night.

Famotidine and selected H2-antagonists were evaluated with respect to toxicity and selected pharmacological activities. When administered intraperitoneally to mice at a dose equivalent to 10 times their respective H2-antagonist ED50 values, no deaths were observed. Similarly, no alteration in brain ACh concentrations or overt pharmacological effects were noted. However, at 400 mg/kg, ranitidine produced 89% lethality, followed by cimetidine (11%) and famotidine. Only cimetidine and famotidine at this dose significantly elevated brain acetylcholine levels. These results do not correlate with the in vitro data, where ORF-17578 and ranitidine were the most potent entities with respect to acetylcholinesterase inhibition (approximately 1-2 X 10(-6) M), followed by nizatidine greater than cimetidine greater than famotidine. The sulfoxide metabolites of ranitidine and cimetidine were approximately one-tenth as potent as their parent compounds with respect to inhibition of acetylcholinesterase. Direct muscarinic stimulation or potentiation of acetylcholine-induced contraction in ileal tissue was not observed for any of the H2-antagonists.

The effectiveness of intravenous nizatidine in suppressing gastric acid secretion was evaluated by different methods of inducing secretion in two single-blind studies. In study 1, seven subjects were given single, 20-min intravenous infusions of nizatidine (6.25, 25, 75, 150, or 250 mg) before modified sham feeding (MSF). Gastric acid suppression after nizatidine was contrasted with that after placebo and MSF. All doses of nizatidine reduced secretion; the 150- and 250-mg doses of nizatidine suppressed secretion for at least 2.5 hr. In study 2, eight subjects received one 5-min intravenous infusion of placebo, cimetidine (300 mg), or nizatidine (25, 50, 100, or 250 mg) weekly for 6 wk. Secretion was induced by infusing pentagastrin (2 µg/kg/hr) 45 min before the study drug was dosed and for 3.5 hr thereafter. Again, all doses of nizatidine reduced gastric acid, chiefly by decreasing volume. Nizatidine induced a clear dose-response effect; nizatidine (100 mg) and cimetidine (300 mg) had approximately equal suppressive effects. Nizatidine (100 mg) and cimetidine (300 mg) reduced acid output by 62% and 63% and reduced volume of secretion by 48% and 51% over the 3.5-hr period. Gastric acid suppression and plasma nizatidine concentrations were directly related. Nizatidine kinetics were linear and proportional to dose. The t½ was 1.3 hr (range 0.7 to 2.1 hr), the volume of distribution was 1.2 ± 0.5 l/kg, and clearance was 0.6 ± 0.2 l/kg/hr. Laboratory abnormalities and side effects were minor in both studies. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1985) 37, 162–165; doi:10.1038/clpt.1985.29

Description d'une methode chromatographique avec detection UV, specifique pour le dosage de nizatidine, avec utilisation de la ranitidine comme etalon interne. Application au dosage de nizatidine dans le serum sanguin et l'urine apres extraction en presence d'une solution de ranitidine