The significant inhibitory capacity of gastric acid secretion of PPIs makes them the drugs of choice for treating acid-related diseases. The considerable prevalence of these diseases and the need for maintaining the administration of the drug during considerably long periods results in this therapeutic group being one of the most widely used. However, in spite of their extensive use, there continue to emerge concerns about their potential toxicity; concerns surrounding the specificity of their mechanism of action and a consequential suspicion that something so potent must involve harmful effects. PPIs act selectively on the final stage of the process of gastric acid secretion, namely the H+/K+-ATPase or proton pump. This enzyme represents an essential step in the process of secretion of H+, and PPIs exert a very specific action on the parietal cell, as they need an environment with very low pH levels, which only exist in this cell. In the present article, the adverse effects of PPIs are reviewed, with special emphasis on those related to their continued administration and on the special circumstances of patients, as in the case of the elderly, those with liver failure, pregnant and breastfeeding mothers and children. All the PPIs on the market share a common chemical basis and there are no great differences in their potential adverse effects, the possibility of them promoting opportunist infections or their capacity to generate pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs, which, if occur, are generally insignificant. After two decades of use, PPIs have proved to be very effective and safe drugs.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use is increasingly recognized as a major factor associated with peptic ulcer disease and complications. We undertook a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of nizatidine in preventing ulcer formation in patients with osteoarthritis who were taking NSAIDs. METHODS: After endoscopy to rule out the presence of an acute ulcer, 496 patients were randomized to receive nizatidine, 150 mg twice daily (248 patients) or placebo (248 patients) for 3 months. Repeated endoscopies were performed monthly. We defined failure as development of a peptic ulcer (> or = 0.3 cm in diameter). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics tested were comparable for the two groups with regard to age, sex, ulcer history, and Helicobacter pylori status. Overall ulcer occurrence in the nizatidine group (9.7%) was not significantly different from that in the placebo group (13.7%; P =.163). High-risk subgroups (patients with ulcer history and patients > or = 65 years of age), however, revealed statistically fewer ulcers for patients receiving nizatidine (P =.035 and P =.042, respectively). Analysis of antacid use showed significantly less use in nizatidine recipients, although there were similar percentages of patients showing improvement in dyspeptic symptoms in each treatment group. We failed to observe a conclusive correlation between H pylori status at baseline, as measured by serum immunoglobulin antibody, and development of an ulcer. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that nizatidine, 150 mg, twice daily, significantly reduces the incidence of ulcer formation in high-risk patients taking long-term NSAID therapy. It also relieves NSAID-associated dyspeptic symptoms in some patients.

BACKGROUND: Computerized order entry systems have the potential to prevent errors, to improve quality of care, and to reduce costs by providing feedback and suggestions to the physician as each order is entered. This study assesses the impact of an inpatient computerized physician order entry system on prescribing practices. METHODS: A time series analysis was performed at an urban academic medical center at which all adult inpatient orders are entered through a computerized system. When physicians enter drug orders, the computer displays drug use guidelines, offers relevant alternatives, and suggests appropriate doses and frequencies. RESULT: For medication selection, use of a computerized guideline resulted in a change in use of the recommended drug (nizatidine) from 15.6% of all histamine(2)-blocker orders to 81.3%(P<.001). Implementation of dose selection menus resulted in a decrease in the SD of drug doses by 11%(P<.001). The proportion of doses that exceeded the recommended maximum decreased from 2.1% before order entry to 0.6% afterward (P<.001). Display of a recommended frequency for ondansetron hydrochloride administration resulted in an increase in the use of the approved frequency from 6% of all ondansetron orders to 75%(P<.001). The use of subcutaneous heparin sodium to prevent thrombosis in patients at bed rest increased from 24% to 47% when the computer suggested this option (P<.001). All these changes persisted at 1- and 2-year follow-up analyses. CONCLUSION: Computerized physician order entry is a powerful and effective tool for improving physician prescribing practices.

Two doses of nizatidine (150 mg bid and 300 mg hs), an H2-receptor antagonist, were compared with placebo in a 12-wk, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel study in 466 patients with endoscopically documented gastroesophageal reflux disease. Antacid tablets were given concomitantly as needed for pain. Compared with placebo, nizatidine 150 mg twice daily was highly effective in rapidly reducing the severity of heartburn, regardless of esophagitis severity at entry. Significantly greater complete mucosal healing of esophagitis occurred after 6 wk of therapy with nizatidine 150 mg bid (vs. nizatidine 300 mg hs or placebo) only in patients with erosive esophagitis [16/68 (24%) vs. 8/65 (12%)] and erosive and ulcerative esophagitis combined [21/99 (21%) vs. 10/94 (11%)]. At wk 12, healing with nizatidine 150 mg bid was also significantly greater than placebo in erosive [19/68 (28%) vs. 9/65 (14%)], ulcerative [10/31 (32%) vs. 3/29 (10%)], and erosive and ulcerative esophagitis combined [29/99 (29%) vs. 12/94 (13%)]. These results show that twice-daily therapy with nizatidine 150 mg is very effective at relieving heartburn, and can also heal erosive and ulcerative esophagitis. Nizatidine 300 mg hs was not effective in healing esophagitis, compared with placebo.

Two doses of nizatidine (150 mg twice daily and 300 mg at bedtime), an H2-receptor antagonist, were compared with placebo in a 12-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel study in 466 patients with endoscopically documented gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Antacid tablets were given concomitantly as needed for pain. Compared with placebo, nizatidine 150 mg twice daily was highly effective in rapidly reducing the severity of heartburn, regardless of oesophagitis severity at entry. Significantly greater complete mucosal healing of oesophagitis occurred after 6 weeks of therapy with nizatidine 150 mg bid (vs nizatidine 300 mg at bedtime or placebo) only in patients with erosive oesophagitis [16/68 (24%) vs 8/65 (12%)] and erosive and ulcerative oesophagitis combined [21/99 (21%) vs 10/94 (11%)]. At week 12, healing with nizatidine 150 mg bid was also significantly greater than placebo in erosive [19/68 (28%) vs 9/65 (14%)], ulcerative [10/31 (32%) vs 3/29 (10%)], and erosive and ulcerative oesophagitis combined [29/99 (29%) vs 12/94 (13%)]. These results show that twice-daily therapy with nizatidine 150 mg is very effective at relieving heartburn, and can also heal erosive and ulcerative oesophagitis. Nizatidine 300 mg at bedtime was not effective at healing oesophagitis, compared with placebo.

BACKGROUND: Pantoprazole is a proton pump inhibitor approved for the treatment of erosive oesophagitis and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole vs. nizatidine for the treatment of symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and endoscopically documented erosive oesophagitis (grade > or = 2). METHODS: A multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled study (221 patients) was performed to compare 20 and 40 mg pantoprazole daily with nizatidine 150 mg b.d.(maximum, 8 weeks). The primary end-point was endoscopic healing of erosive oesophagitis (grade 1 or 0). The secondary end-point was symptomatic improvement. RESULTS: Healing averaged 61%, 64% and 22% for pantoprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and nizatidine 150 mg, respectively, at 4 weeks, and 79%, 83% and 41% at 8 weeks (P < 0.05, differences between groups at both points). Starting on day 1 of symptom assessment, significantly fewer pantoprazole-treated patients reported night-time heartburn and regurgitation compared with nizatidine-treated patients. Symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were completely eliminated in 68% and 65% of patients in the pantoprazole 20-mg and 40-mg groups and in 28% of patients in the nizatidine group at study completion. The difference between each pantoprazole group and the nizatidine group was significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole, at single daily doses of 20 mg and 40 mg for up to 8 weeks, provides more rapid relief of symptoms and superior healing of erosive oesophagitis than nizatidine 150 mg b.d., and is well tolerated.

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.

A randomised crossover study was performed in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis (or other arthropathies) to investigate if any alteration in the steady pharmacokinetics of the NSAID piroxicam (a drug which is extensively metabolised via cytochrome P450) or its major metabolites occurred as a result of coadministering either cimetidine or nizatidine. Twelve females and 2 males with mean age, weight, and albumin concentrations of 58 years, 61 kg, and 40 g.L-1 respectively, completed the study. Comparisons were made between the following parameters: plasma piroxicam AUCs [AUC0-24(P)], plasma 5-hydroxypiroxicam AUCs [AUC0-24(5-OHP)], the ratio of these i.e. AUC0-24(5-OHP):AUC0-24(p), the % piroxicam daily dose excreted in urine as 5-hydroxypiroxicam (before and after glucuronidase incubation); and the mean of the steady state trough piroxicam, and 5-hydroxypiroxicam concentrations (obtained during each study phase in addition to the wash-out period). A statistically significant difference as a result of initiating either cimetidine or nizatidine was obtained only for the ratio AUC0-23(5-OHP):AUC0-24(P). This was indicative of a weak potential to inhibit piroxicam hydroxylation. No clinically significant alteration in the steady state pharmacokinetics of piroxicam occurred in these subjects as a result of cimetidine or nizatidine coadministration. Consequently it is unlikely that any adverse events would arise from these combinations.