H2-antagonists and alcohol. Do they interact?

Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Gastrointestinal Toxicity

Humans swallow a great variety and often large amounts of chemicals as nutrients, incidental food additives and contaminants, drugs, and inhaled particles and chemicals, thus exposing the gastrointestinal tract to many potentially toxic substances. It serves as a barrier in many cases to protect other components of the body from such substances and infections. Fortunately, the gastrointestinal tract is remarkably robust and generally is able to withstand multiple daily assaults by the chemicals to which it is exposed. Some chemicals, however, can affect one or more aspects of the gastrointestinal tract to produce abnormal events that reflect toxicity. It is the purpose of this chapter to evaluate the mechanisms by which toxic chemicals produce their deleterious effects and to determine the consequences of the toxicity on integrity of gastrointestinal structure and function. Probably because of the intrinsic ability of the gastrointestinal tract to resist toxic chemicals, there is a paucity of data regarding gastrointestinal toxicology. It is therefore necessary in many cases to extrapolate toxic mechanisms from infectious processes, inflammatory conditions, ischemia, and other insults in addition to more conventional chemical sources of toxicity.

Serotonin and histamine mediate gastroprotective effect of fluoxetine against experimentally-induced ulcers in rats

Research in the treatment of gastric ulcer has involved the investigation of new alternatives, such as anti-depressant drugs. The present study was designed to investigate the gastroprotective effects of fluoxetine against indomethacin and alcohol induced gastric ulcers in rats and the potential mechanisms of that effect. Fluoxetine (20 mg/kg) was administered IP for 14 days. For comparative purposes, other rats were treated with ranitidine (30 mg/kg). Thereafter, after 24 h of fasting, INDO (100 mg/kg) or absolute alcohol (5 ml/kg) was administered to all rats (saline was administered to naïve controls) and rats in each group were sacrificed 5 h (for INDO rats) or 1 h (for alcohol rats) later. Macroscopic examination revealed that both fluoxetine and ranitidine decreased ulcer scores in variable ratios, which was supported by microscopic histopathological examination. Biochemical analysis of fluoxetine- or ranitidine-pre-treated host tissues demonstrated reductions in tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and myeloperoxidase (MPO) levels and concomitant increases in gastric pH, nitric oxide (NO) and reduced glutathione (GSH) contents. Fluoxetine, more than ranitidine, also resulted in serotonin and histamine levels nearest to control values. Moreover, immuno-histochemical analysis showed that fluoxetine markedly enhanced expression of cyclo-oxygenases COX-1 and COX-2 in both models; in comparison, ranitidine did not affect COX-1 expression in either ulcer model but caused moderate increases in COX-2 expression in INDO-induced hosts and high expression in alcohol-induced hosts. The results here indicated fluoxetine exhibited better gastroprotective effects than ranitidine and this could be due to anti-secretory, anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-histaminic effects of the drug, as well as a stabilization of gastric serotonin levels.

Differences between the measured blood ethanol concentration and the estimated concentration by Widmark's equation in elderly persons

BACKGROUND

The Widmark's equation (C [BAC]=A/p×r) is the most commonly used formula in legal medicine to estimate the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) from the amount of ingested ethanol and vice versa. Within a drinking experiment with a target BAC of 1.2 g/kg, a 75-year-old participant reached a maximum BAC of 1.83 g/kg and showed signs of severe ethanol intoxication, while the other nine subjects (age: 19-31 years) had BACs close to the target BAC. This incident brought up the question, if the Widmark's equation is an appropriate tool for aged persons.

METHODS

A drinking experiment with 50 elderly voluntary test persons (22 males, 28 females, mean age and range [males]: 69.7 years, 60-84 years, mean age and range [females]: 68.5 years, 61-78 years) was performed. The amount of ethanol leading to a BAC of 0.6 g/kg was estimated individually using the Widmark's equation (used Widmark factors: 0.7 for males, 0.6 for females). After drinking, the blood ethanol concentrations were measured using headspace gas chromatography/flame ionization detection.

RESULTS

The measured maximum BACs of the elderly participants were significantly higher (α=0.01) than the target BAC (mean maximum BAC and range: 0.627 g/kg, 0.3-0.81 g/kg, for males: 0.616 g/kg, 0.32-0.78 g/kg, for females: 0.635 g/kg, 0.3-0.81). The calculated Widmark factors showed a high coefficient of variation (for males: 0.7±0.138 [0.55-1.2, CV: 19.7%], for females 0.59±0.119 [0.46-1.08, CV: 20.2%]).

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that BAC calculations by Widmark's equation in elderly individuals may be complicated by a high variation of Widmark factors. There is a tendency to an elevation of the actual BAC with increasing age.

Alcohol-medical drug interactions

Concomitant use of alcohol and medications may lead to potentially serious medical conditions. Increasing prescription medication abuse in today's society necessitates a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved in alcohol-medication interactions in order to help prevent adverse events. Interactions of medications with alcohol result in altered bioavailability of the medication or alcohol (pharmacokinetic interactions) or modification of the effects at receptor or ion channel sites to alter behavioral or physical outcome (pharmacodynamic interactions). The nature of pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions involved in alcohol-medication interactions may differ between acute and chronic alcohol use and be influenced by race, gender, or environmental or genetic factors. This review focuses on the mechanisms underlying pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between alcohol and medications and provides examples for such interactions from replicated research studies. In conclusion, further translational research is needed to address several gaps in our current knowledge of alcohol-medication interactions, including those under various pathologic conditions.

The medico-legal significance of pharmacokinetic interactions with ethanol

In the UK, the maximal permitted ethanol concentration for driving is 80 mg ethanol/100 mL blood, 35 μg ethanol/100 mL breath or 107 mg ethanol/100 mL urine. Drivers exceeding the prescribed limit face severe penalties, which they are often anxious to avoid, either by acquittal or by putting forward 'special reasons' why they should not be disqualified from driving. One frequently explored defence is that the accused was taking prescribed medication. Defence solicitors often ask the question whether the prescribed medication could have caused significantly altered blood ethanol concentrations. This paper reviews the impact of various medications and how they can influence the blood ethanol concentration. Although many drugs can interact with ethanol at a pharmacodynamic level, causing increased impairment, relatively few drugs interact with ethanol pharmacokinetically leading to significantly altered blood ethanol concentrations.

Is there an interaction between H2-antagonists and alcohol?

H2-antagonists are commonly prescribed drugs and alcohol use is widespread in the community. Any possible interaction may be important because of the frequent co-administration of both drugs and the potential for unexpected impairment of pyschomotor function, in particular, driving skills. Hepatic ADH is the major site of alcohol metabolism. ADH is also found in the stomach, but it is uncertain whether gastric ADH is able to metabolise a significant amount of alcohol in vivo. Significant first-pass metabolism can be demonstrated at lower doses of alcohol, and if alcohol is given after meals. Varying degrees of extraction of alcohol from the portal circulation probably explains the data regarding first pass metabolism rather than gastric metabolism by gastric ADH. H2-receptor antagonists inhibit gastric ADH activity to a variable extent. If gastric metabolism of alcohol is negligible then this inhibition has no relevance. Given the uncertainty regarding a mechanism of interaction, only carefully conducted studies in controlled environments will answer the question. The large inter-subject variability of alcohol absorption means that any study which seeks to determine the effect of an H2-receptor antagonist on ethanol metabolism must have sufficient numbers. A cross-over design, with each subject acting as his own control, is preferable to avoid ascribing an effect to treatment rather than to chance. The alcohol dosing studies are reviewed and the results summarised according to dose of alcohol given. At a dose of 0.15 g/kg of alcohol, four commonly used H2-antagonists may cause a small increase in blood alcohol concentrations in certain conditions. This absolute increase is very small. The magnitude of effect is far less than the effect of taking a meal before alcohol. At doses of 0.3 g/kg and above the majority of evidence favours no interaction between H2-antagonists and alcohol. There is no interaction at doses that would be expected to impair psychomotor skills (above 25 mg/dl). There remains a question regarding the cumulative effect of repeated small doses of alcohol and further studies are required. The relationship between ethanol absorption and gastric emptying raises the possibility that the effects of H2-receptor antagonists observed at very low doses of alcohol may be due to the acceleration of gastric emptying by these drugs. This is an attractive hypothesis that explains many aspects of the debate, but studies of the effect of H2-antagonists on gastric emptying have been conflicting.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between alcohol and other drugs

The frequent use of alcohol (ethanol) together with prescription drugs gives any described pharmacokinetic interaction significant clinical implications. The issue is both the effect of alcohol on the pharmacokinetics of various drugs and also the effect of those drugs on the pharmacokinetics of alcohol. This review discusses these pharmacokinetic interactions but also briefly describes some other effects of alcohol that are clinically relevant to drug prescribing. The use of several different study designs may be required before we can confidently state the presence or absence of any alcohol-drug interaction. Short term administration of alcohol in volunteers is the most common study design but studies of social drinking and prolonged moderate alcohol intake can be important in some situations. Community-based studies may illustrate the clinical relevance of any interaction. Alcohol can affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs by altering gastric emptying or liver metabolism (by inducing cytochrome P450 2E1). Drugs may affect the pharmacokinetics of alcohol by altering gastric emptying and inhibiting gastric alcohol dehydrogenase. The role of gastric alcohol dehydrogenase in the first-pass metabolism of alcohol is reviewed in this article and the arguments for and against any potential interaction between alcohol and H2 receptor antagonists are also discussed. The inhibition of the metabolism of acetaldehyde may cause disulfiram-like reactions. Pharmacodynamic interactions between alcohol and prescription drugs are common, particularly the additive sedative effects with benzodiazepines and also with some of the antihistamine drugs; other interactions may occur with tricyclic antidepressants. Alcohol intake may be a contributing factor to the disease state which is being treated and may complicate treatment because of various pathophysiological effects (e.g. impairment of gluconeogenesis and the risk of hypoglycaemia with oral hypoglycaemic agents). The combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and alcohol intake increases the risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage.