Reversal of the tolerance phenomenon by the intermittent administration of a histamine H2-receptor antagonist

The frequency of oral famotidine administration influences its effect on gastric pH in cats over time

Background

Famotidine is commonly administered to cats. Prolonged famotidine administration results in decreased efficacy in humans, dogs, and cows, but the long‐term effects in cats are unknown.

Objectives

To compare the effect of 2 oral administration frequencies of famotidine, twice daily (Group 1) and twice daily every second day (Group 2), on intragastric pH and serum gastrin concentrations in cats. We hypothesized a diminished effect on intragastric pH would be observed over time in Group 1 but not Group 2.

Animals

Sixteen healthy cats.

Methods

Randomized, 2‐factor repeated measures crossover design. Cats received 0.5‐1.24 mg/kg (median, 0.87 mg/kg) famotidine twice daily or twice daily every second day for 14 consecutive days. Intragastric pH monitoring was used to record intragastric pH on treatment days 1‐3 and 11‐13. Mean pH and mean percentage time (MPT) intragastric pH was ≥3 and 4 were compared between and within treatment groups by analysis of variance.

Results

Significant treatment group by time interactions were observed for mean intragastric pH, MPT intragastric pH ≥3 and 4 (P = .009, P = .02, P = .005, respectively). Interaction post hoc tests identified significant decreases in mean intragastric pH (P = .001), MPT ≥3 (P = .001), and MPT ≥4 (P = .001) on day 13 compared to day 1 in Group 1 but not in Group 2.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Oral famotidine administration results in a diminished effect on intragastric pH in healthy cats when given twice daily every day.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Pilot Study of the Effect of Famotidine on Acotiamide Treatment for Functional Dyspepsia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acotiamide, a prokinetic drug, is used to treat functional dyspepsia (FD), especially postprandial distress syndrome (PDS). However, a treatment for FD patients with PDS and/or epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) has not been established. We investigated the efficacy of famotidine in combination with acotiamide for FD.

METHODS

Fifty blindly randomized FD patients received placebo with acotiamide, or famotidine with acotiamide, for 4 weeks. Treatment efficacy was assessed by overall treatment effects (OTE), total, PDS and EPS symptom scores, and impairment of quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

After OTE assessment, patients who felt affected by treatment comprised 40.9 and 57.9% of famotidine and placebo groups, respectively, after 4 weeks' treatment, with no significant difference between groups. A significant decrease was seen in total, PDS, and EPS symptom scores, and in QOL impairment, after 4 weeks' treatment compared with pretreatment scores for famotidine and placebo groups, but was not observed between groups. The proportion of patients showing a ≥50% decrease in EPS symptom scores was greater in the famotidine than that in the placebo group for every observation point, with the greatest difference observed after 2 weeks' treatment.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of famotidine and acotiamide combination therapy in FD was similar to the effectiveness of acotiamide therapy alone.

[The Mexican consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease. Part I]

BACKGROUND

The changes, advances, and new discoveries regarding different aspects of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have made it necessary to update the Mexican Consensus published in 2002.

AIMS

To elaborate a new Mexican Consensus on GERD.

METHODS

The general project coordinators selected six GERD experts to carry out an extensive review of the literature for the purpose of elaborating statements on the principal aspects of GERD. These were then placed under the consideration of specialists in the study of this disease. Definitive approval by all participants was reached using the modified Delphi method with three rounds of anonymous and iterative voting. The following scale was employed: A- in complete agreement; B- in agreement, but with minor concerns; C- in agreement, but with major concerns; D- in disagreement, but with major concerns; E- in disagreement, but with minor concerns; or F- in complete disagreement. Consensus was declared when 67.00% or more of the participants concurred on a category of agreement (A, B, or C).

RESULTS

A consensus was reached on 160 of the statements upon completion of the voting rounds, with 90.00% concurrence for the majority of them.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2011 Mexican Consensus on Gastroesophageal Disease is a practical and up-to-date consultation tool, providing the opinion of Mexican experts on all the new information available about this disease. It allows there to be homogeneity in diagnostic and therapeutic criteria, all of which serves to benefit our patients.