Summary Background :  Gastro‐oesophageal reflux afflicts up to 7% of all infants. Histamine‐2 receptor antagonists are the most commonly prescribed medications for this disorder, but few controlled studies support this practice. Aim : To evaluate the safety and efficacy of famotidine for infant gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease. Methods : Thirty‐five infants, 1.3–10.5 months of age, entered an 8‐week, multi‐centre, randomized, placebo‐controlled, two‐phase trial: first 4 weeks, observer‐blind comparison of famotidine 0.5 mg/kg and famotidine 1.0 mg/kg; second 4 weeks, double‐blind withdrawal comparison (safety and efficacy) of each dose with placebo. Results : No serious adverse events were reported. Eleven patients had 16 non‐serious, possibly drug‐related adverse experiences: 6 patients with agitation or irritability (manifested as head‐rubbing in two), 3 patients with somnolence, 2 patients with anorexia, 2 with headache, 1 patient with vomiting, 1 patient with hiccups, and 1 patient with candidiasis. Of the 35 infants, 27 completed Part I. There were significant score improvements for famotidine 0.5 mg/kg in regurgitation frequency (P = 0.04), and for famotidine 1.0 mg/kg in crying time (P = 0.027) and regurgitation frequency (P = 0.004) and volume (P = 0.01). Eight infants completed Part II on double‐blind treatment, which was insufficient for meaningful comparisons. Conclusions : Histamine‐2 receptor antagonists may cause agitation and headache in infants. A possibly efficacious famotidine dose for infants is 0.5 mg/kg (frequency adjusted for age). As 1.0 mg/kg may be more efficacious in some, the dosage may require individualization based on response. Further sizeable placebo‐controlled evaluations of histamine‐2 receptor antagonists in infants with gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease are warranted.

Summary:The HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors lovastatin and pravastatin have both proven to be effective and well tolerated in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. To evaluate whether lovastatin or pravastatin might affect daytime cognitive function, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, incomplete block, crossover study was performed in 36 patients (24 per treatment) with primary hypercholesterolemia. Patients received placebo, lovastatin (40 mg), or pravastatin (40 mg) for4 weeks. Following a 1-week washout period, patients were crossed over to either lovastatin, pravastatin, or placebo for an additional 4 weeks. Mental performance tests (digit symbol substitution, choice reaction time, auditory vigilance, selective reminding word recall, finger tapping), visual analogue rating scales, and the Profile of Mood States were administered before test drug administration and after 2 and 4 weeks of each treatment. After 4 weeks, no statistically significant differences between treatments in changes from baseline were observed on any parameter with the exception of digit symbol substitution, for which lovastatin and pravastatjn were both significantly better than placebo but did not differ from each other. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was reduced 38% by lovastatin and 30% by pravastatin. In summary, neither of these chemically distinct HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors impaired daytime cognitive performance after 4 weeks of treatment in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

The effects of equi-efficacious doses of the cholesterol-lowering drugs simvastatin (20 mg day-') and pravastatin (40 mg day-) on tests of cognitive function were investigated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period (4 weeks per period), incomplete block, crossover study of 36 patients (24 per treatment) with hypercholesterolaemia. After 4 weeks neither of the active treatments differed significantly from placebo on any cognitive measure.

We conclude that both famotidine 10 mg and ranitidine 75 mg significantly raise intragastric pH when given as single post-prandial doses. Famotidine 10 mg may have a greater effect than ranitidine elixir 75 mg over the 5-9-h period after dosing.

Aim: To establish whether patients taking famotidine 10 mg to treat an episode of heartburn were protected from a recurrence of symptoms after a subsequent test meal. Methods: Frequent heartburn sufferers (n=366) were randomized to receive double blind treatment with famotidine 10 mg or 2×250 mg chewable alginate tablets within 30 min of a spontaneous episode of heartburn. After 4 h, patients with no or slight residual symptoms consumed a meal likely to induce heartburn. Over the next 4 h patients recorded the severity of heartburn and any consumption of ‘rescue’ antacids. At the end of this time they rated the global efficacy of their treatment in controlling meal‐induced symptoms. Results: Study groups were well matched for all baseline characteristics. Of the 366 randomized patients, 276 took study medication and data from 269 patients (132 famotidine, 137 alginate) were analysed for efficacy. Compared to the alginate control group famotidine treated patients reported better global efficacy following the test meal (P<0.001; relative odds for a more favourable response: 2.26 [95% CI: 1.45–3.53]). Fewer patients receiving famotidine resorted to antacid rescue (P = 0.038; relative odds for a more favourable response: 2.24 [95% CI: 1.04–4.79]) and peak heartburn was significantly less severe with famotidine treatment (P<0.001; relative odds for a more favourable response: 2.90 [95% CI: 1.85–4.53]). Eleven famotidine‐treated patients (8%) and 13 alginate patients (9%) reported adverse events. Conclusion: Compared to patients receiving an alginate preparation, patients self medicating with famotidine 10 mg for heartburn are better protected against a recurrence of their symptoms when they next eat. This suggests that the duration of acid control (9 h) previously demonstrated with this dose translates into a similar duration of measurable symptom control during the day.