Cimetidine does not alter morphine disposition in man

Drug interactions through binding to cytochrome p 450: the experience with h2-receptor blocking agents

H2-receptor blocking agents, such as cimetidine, ranitidine or oxmetidine, are consumed in large amounts often together with a variety of other drugs. There is increasing evidence that cimetidine interferes with the hepatic elimination of several drugs, thereby aggravating the effects of the comedication. Microsomal studies in vitro revealed that cimetidine binds in therapeutic concentrations to cytochrome P450, which may represent the primary mechanism for its ability to inhibit drug metabolism and thereby interact with other drugs. The structurally different ranitidine (replacement of the imidazole in cimetidine by a furan ring) is about five times as potent as a H2-receptor blocker and displays low affinity for binding sites on cytochrome P 450. Therefore, therapeutic doses of ranitidine do not impair the metabolism of other drugs. Preliminary data with oxmetidine suggest that it too does not interfere at the level of hepatic elimination. Thus, it is concluded that new therapeutic agents should be tested for their ability to bind to cytochrome P 450 to determine possible risks of drug interactions.

Pain and Terminal Delirium Research in the Elderly

This article highlights new developments in assessment and management of pain and delirium.

Human variability in glucuronidation in relation to uncertainty factors for risk assessment

The appropriateness of the default uncertainty factor for human variability in kinetics has been investigated for glucuronidation using an extensive database of substrates metabolised primarily by this pathway. Inter-individual variability was quantified for 15 compounds from published pharmacokinetic studies (after oral and intravenous dosing) in healthy adults and other subgroups using parameters relating to chronic exposure (metabolic and total clearances, area under the plasma concentration time-curve (AUC)) and acute exposure (C(max)). Low inter-individual variability (about 30-35%) was found for all parameters (clearance corrected or not corrected for body weight, metabolic clearance, oral AUC and C(max)) after either iv or oral administration to healthy adults. The overall variability of 31% for glucuronidation in healthy adults supported the validity of the default kinetic uncertainty factor of 3.16 for this group, because it would cover more than 99% of individuals. Comparisons between potentially sensitive subgroups and healthy adults using differences in means and variability indicated that neonates showed the greatest impairment of glucuronidation, and that the 3.16 kinetic default factor applied to the mean data for adults would be inadequate for this subpopulation. The in vivo data have been used to derive pathway-related default factors for compounds eliminated largely via glucuronidation.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sedatives and analgesics in the treatment of agitated critically ill patients

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sedatives and analgesics are significantly altered in the critically ill. These changes may account for the large differences in drug dosage requirements compared with other patient populations. Drugs that in other settings may be considered short-acting often have significantly altered onset and duration of action in critically ill patients, necessitating a change in dosage. Of the benzodiazepines, lorazepam is the drug whose parameters are the least likely to be altered in critical illness. The presence of active metabolites with other benzodiazepines complicates their use during periods of prolonged use. Similarly, the presence of active metabolites of morphine and pethidine (meperidine) warrants caution in patients with renal insufficiency. The fewer cardiovascular effects seen with high-potency opioids, such as fentanyl and sufentanil, increase their usefulness in haemodynamically compromised patients. The pharmacodynamics of propofol are not significantly altered in the critically ill. Ketamine should be used with a benzodiazepine to prevent the emergence of psychomimetic reactions. Lower sedative doses of benzodiazepines and anaesthetics may not provide reliable amnesia. Barbiturates and propofol probably do not induce hyperalgesia and lack intrinsic analgesic activity. The antipsychotic agent haloperidol has a calming effect on patients and administration to the point of sedation is generally not necessary. Combinations of sedatives and analgesics are synergistic in producing sedation. The costs of sedation and analgesia are very variable and closely linked to the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drug. Monitoring of sedation and analgesia is difficult in uncooperative patients in the intensive care unit. In the future, specific monitoring tools may assist clinicians in the regulation of infusions of sedative and analgesic agents.

Drug interactions of clinical significance with opioid analgesics

Opioid analgesics and other drugs interact through multiple mechanisms, resulting in pharmacological effects that depend upon the pharmacodynamic action studied, the interacting agents and the route of administration. Many interactions result from induction or inhibition of the hepatic cytochrome P450 mono-oxygenase system. The elimination of opioids is largely dependent on hepatic metabolism, and drug interactions involving this mechanism can therefore be clinically significant. Antibiotics are often used concomitantly with opioids in patients undergoing medical or surgical procedures; the best documented metabolic interactions are with erythromycin and rifampicin (rifampin). Erythromycin increases and rifampicin decreases the effects of opioids. Cimetidine may increase the effects of opioids by increasing their duration of action; there have been no documented cases of interactions with ranitidine. Carbamazepine, phenytoin and the barbiturates can enhance the metabolism of opioids that rely on hepatic metabolism. Other pharmacokinetic interactions include those with benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants, phenothiazines and metoclopramide. Interactions involving pharmacodynamic mechanisms are more common than pharmacokinetic ones. Such interactions are manifested clinically as as a summation (additive or synergistic) of similar or opposing pharmacological effects on the same body system. Idiosyncratic interactions also occur, the mechanisms of which have not been proven to be solely modulated by either pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic means. The knowledge of particular opioid-drug interactions, and the causative pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and idiosyncratic mechanisms, allows for the safer administration of opioid analgesics.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions in anaesthetic practice

Patients receive on average 10 different drugs while in hospital; when fewer than 6 are administered the probability of an adverse drug interaction is about 5%, but when more than 15 are given the probability increases to over 40%. Patients presenting for anaesthesia and surgery are likely to receive multiple preoperative drug therapy and also many perioperative medications as part of their anaesthetic regimen. Thus, there is a considerable potential for interactions to occur in anaesthetic practice. Pharmacokinetic interactions occur when the administration of 1 drug alters the disposition of another, and hence alters the concentration of drug at the receptor site, leading to altered drug response. These changes in drug concentration at the receptor site may be produced by alteration of (a) drug absorption and uptake into the body, (b) drug distribution, (c) drug metabolism and (d) drug elimination or excretion by nonmetabolic routes. Interactions affecting the absorption of orally administered medications are often due to the indirect effect of 1 drug on gastric motility and emptying, which leads to reduced, delayed or variable systemic drug availability. Gastric emptying time before elective surgery is normal, but premedication with morphine, pethidine (meperidine) and anticholinergics all delay gastric emptying and hence drug absorption. Inhalational anaesthesia of short duration does not appear to affect drug absorption, although halothane anaesthetic used for longer periods produces a slight delay in gastric emptying. Volatile anaesthetics have been shown to delay the intramuscular absorption of ketamine. Anaesthetic agents may affect drug distribution, and peak concentrations of propranolol, for example, are 4 times higher during halothane anaesthesia in dogs, accompanied by a marked decrease in volume of distribution. This effect has been noted for other drugs, including thiopental and verapamil. Volatile anaesthetics also affect plasma protein binding, leading to displacement interactions in some cases. Volatile anaesthetics affect the metabolism of concomitantly administered drug (a) by altering the rate of delivery to the organ of clearance (e.g. decreasing hepatic blood flow) and (b) by altering the activity of drug metabolising enzymes. It is now well recognised that all the volatile anaesthetics currently in use inhibit the metabolism of a large variety of drugs, e.g. propranolol, lidocaine (lignocaine), fentanyl and pethidine. Other examples of interactions of clinical importance to anaesthesiologists include those between cimetidine and the local anaesthetics and benzodiazepines; inhibition of plasma cholinesterase by drugs such as ecothiopate; interactions between monoamine oxidase inhibitors and sympathomimetics or pethidine and between monoamine oxidase inhibitors and sympathomimetics or pethidine and between isoniazid and enflurane.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Clinical pharmacokinetics of drugs used in the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases (Part II)

Part I of this article, which appeared in the previous issue of the Journal, covered the following agents: histamine H2-receptor antagonists (cimetidine, ranitidine, famotidine, nizatidine); muscarinic-M1-receptor antagonists (pirenzepine); proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole); site-protective agents (colloidal bismuth subcitrate, sucralfate); antacids and prostaglandin analogues; antiemetics and prokinetics (metoclopramide, domperidone, cisapride); and antispasmodics. In Part II, we consider the anti-inflammatory salicylates, nonspecific antidiarrhoeal agents, laxatives and cathartics.

Pharmacokinetic interactions of cimetidine 1987

The number of studies on drug interactions with cimetidine has increased at a rapid rate over the past 5 years, with many of the interactions being solely pharmacokinetic in origin. Very few studies have investigated the clinical relevance of such pharmacokinetic interactions by measuring pharmacodynamic responses or clinical endpoints. Apart from pharmacokinetic studies, invariably conducted in young, healthy subjects, there have been a large number of in vitro and in vivo animal studies, case reports, clinical observations and general reviews on the subject, which is tending to develop an industry of its own accord. Nevertheless, where specific mechanisms have been considered, these have undoubtedly increased our knowledge on the way in which humans eliminate xenobiotics. There is now sufficient information to predict the likelihood of a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction with cimetidine and to make specific clinical recommendations. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with cimetidine occur at the sites of gastrointestinal absorption and elimination including metabolism and excretion. Cimetidine has been found to reduce the plasma concentrations of ketoconazole, indomethacin and chlorpromazine by reducing their absorption. In the case of ketoconazole the interaction was clinically important. Cimetidine does not inhibit conjugation mechanisms including glucuronidation, sulphation and acetylation, or deacetylation or ethanol dehydrogenation. It binds to the haem portion of cytochrome P-450 and is thus an inhibitor of phase I drug metabolism (i.e. hydroxylation, dealkylation). Although generally recognised as a nonspecific inhibitor of this type of metabolism, cimetidine does demonstrate some degree of specificity. To date, theophylline 8-oxidation, tolbutamide hydroxylation, ibuprofen hydroxylation, misonidazole demethylation, carbamazepine epoxidation, mexiletine oxidation and steroid hydroxylation have not been shown to be inhibited by cimetidine in humans but the metabolism of at least 30 other drugs is affected. Recent evidence indicates negligible effects of cimetidine on liver blood flow. Cimetidine reduces the renal clearance of drugs which are organic cations, by competing for active tubular secretion in the proximal tubule of the kidney, reducing the renal clearances of procainamide, ranitidine, triamterene, metformin, flecainide and the active metabolite N-acetylprocainamide. This previously unrecognised form of drug interaction with cimetidine may be clinically important for both parent drug, and metabolites which may be active.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Lack of effect of multiple doses of cimetidine on estimated hepatic blood flow

Conflicting data exists regarding the effect of the H2-receptor blocking agent cimetidine on hepatic blood flow (HBF). The variance in the results of these studies may be due in part to differences in the duration of cimetidine administration, the posture of the volunteers during their course of study, and the method used to estimate HBF. To assess the effects of chronic cimetidine (300 mg q.i.d. X 4 days) on estimated HBF while controlling posture (supine and standing), a double-blind, placebo-controlled, repeated measures study was performed in 9 healthy males. Indocyanine green (ICG) plasma clearance after an i.v. dose of 0.5 mg kg-1 was used to calculate HBF. ICG plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC. Compared to placebo treatment, cimetidine had no effect on mean (SD) estimated HBF (ml min-1 m-2) in either the supine (497 (64) vs 494 (80] or the standing (443 (117) vs 404 (89] posture. These data had a power greater than 0.8 to detect a treatment effect of 20 per cent. Standing produced a significant decrease in estimated HBF (496 (70) vs 424 (102); p less than 0.01). In contrast to previous reports, chronic cimetidine treatment had no apparent effect on hepatic blood flow.

High-dose morphine and methadone in cancer patients. Clinical pharmacokinetic considerations of oral treatment

Several clinical studies have shown oral morphine and methadone to be effective in the treatment of intractable pain in patients with malignant disease. Recent pharmacokinetic studies have confirmed the rationale for regular administration of oral morphine and methadone but have revealed marked interindividual differences in the kinetics and metabolism which must be considered when titrating the oral dose according to the individual patient's need. Oral absorption of morphine in patients with malignant diseases is rapid, with peak plasma concentrations occurring at 20 to 90 minutes. Predose steady-state concentrations bear a constant relationship to dose, but vary considerably between individuals. The oral bioavailability is approximately 40% with marked patient-to-patient variations as a result of differences in presystemic elimination. The reported values for the volume of distribution range from 1.0 to 4.7 L/kg. Plasma protein binding is about 30%. The elimination half-life varies between 0.7 and 7.8 hours. Plasma clearance is approximately 19 ml/min/kg (5 to 34 ml/min/kg) and mostly accounted for by metabolic clearance. Studies in a few patients with malignant diseases treated regularly with daily doses of oral morphine ranging from 20 to 750mg indicate a linear relationship between the dose and trough concentration of morphine. Long term treatment with 10- to 20-fold increase of the oral dose over a period of 6 to 8 months does not seem to change the kinetics of oral morphine. The plasma concentrations of the main metabolite, morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G), exceed those of the parent drug by approximately 10-fold after intravenous administration and by 20-fold after oral administration. The relationship between the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of morphine and the AUC of morphine-3-glucuronide remains constant during the development of tolerance upon long term treatment with increasing doses. Renal disease causes a significant increase in the mean plasma concentrations of morphine for 15 minutes after its administration, while mean values of terminal half-life and total body clearance are within the normal range. However, the glucuronidated polar metabolite morphine-3-glucuronide rises rapidly to high concentrations which persist for several days. Chronic liver disease causes an increase in the bioavailability of oral morphine but no, or only a slight reduction in the intravenous clearance. The elimination half-life and volume of distribution are within the normal range.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Benzodiazepine-opiate antagonism--a problem in intensive-care therapy

A 14-year-old previously fit schoolboy was admitted with staphylococcal pneumonia secondary to influenza A infection. His condition deteriorated as he developed adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); during a stormy recovery exceptionally high doses of benzodiazepines and opiates were given in order to suppress voluntary breathing during a successful period of assisted ventilation. It is possible that benzodiazepine-opiate antagonism developed. Subsequent studies in laboratory mice indicate that the respiratory depressant effects of morphine can be antagonized by prior treatment with lorazepam.

The effect of single doses of cimetidine on estimated hepatic blood flow

Controversy exists as to whether H2-receptor antagonists decrease hepatic blood flow. This study examined the effect of single doses of cimetidine 300 and 600 mg po on apparent hepatic blood flow as estimated by indocyanine green (ICG) clearance. A double-blind, repeated-measure study was performed in nine supine healthy men. Following an overnight fast, placebo or cimetidine was administered one hour prior to ICG 0.5 mg/kg iv. Plasma samples were obtained serially for a period of 20 minutes following dye administration and stored at -70 degrees until high performance liquid chromatographic analysis. Cimetidine had no apparent effect on mean +/- SD ICG clearance following placebo, cimetidine 300 mg, and cimetidine 600 mg (366 +/- 66 vs. 336 +/- 55 vs. 350 +/- 58 ml/min/m2, respectively; NS). Corresponding values for estimated hepatic blood flow were 632 +/- 109, 580 +/- 103, and 617 +/- 112 ml/min, respectively; NS. No statistically significant changes in ICG half-life or volume of distribution at steady state occurred as a function of treatment. Contrary to previous reports, single-dose cimetidine administration appeared to have no appreciable effect on hepatic blood flow. These results implicate cimetidine binding to the cytochrome P-450 system as the sole mechanism responsible for inhibition of the systemic clearance of co-administered drugs metabolized by the liver.

Renal failure and the use of morphine in intensive care

Intravenous morphine infusions were given to 20 patients in the intensive-care unit to provide sedation and analgesia. In 10 of the patients renal impairment was already present or developed during intensive care. Plasma morphine concentrations for a given dose of morphine and morphine clearance depended on renal function; dose-related plasma morphine concentrations rose as renal function deteriorated. Reduced morphine clearance leads to increased elimination half-life of the drug, and neurological impairment caused by unrecognised high concentrations of morphine could result in an incorrect diagnosis of cerebral damage in patients in intensive care.

Cimetidine versus famotidine: the effect on the pharmacokinetics of theophylline in rats

The effects of cimetidine and a new, potent H2-antagonist, famotidine, on the single dose pharmacokinetics of theophylline were examined in rats. Male Sprague-Dawley rats (6 rats/group) received an i.v. dose of theophylline (6 mg/kg) alone and in conjunction with an i.v. dose of famotidine (10 mg/kg) or cimetidine (10 mg/kg). Venous blood samples were collected serially for seven hours after theophylline infusion and analyzed for theophylline concentration by HPLC. Concomitant famotidine administration did not alter any of the pharmacokinetic parameters of theophylline (AUC0- infinity; 38.1 +/- 8.7 vs. 38.8 +/- 6.3 micrograms.hr.ml-1), while cimetidine demonstrated a significant reduction in theophylline systemic clearance (0.11 +/- 0.02 vs. 0.16 +/- 0.02 L/hr/kg; p less than 0.001), a 40% prolongation of half-life (2.8 +/- 0.9 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.5 hr), with no change in the volume of distribution (0.39 +/- 0.1 vs. 0.41 +/- 0.13 L/kg). These results suggest that in contrast to cimetidine, famotidine, a non-imidazole H2-receptor antagonist, does not interfere with theophylline disposition in the rat.

The effect of cimetidine on hepatic drug elimination in cirrhosis

Both cimetidine therapy and cirrhosis individually interfere with normal elimination of various drugs. Cimetidine is often prescribed in patients with cirrhosis but there is incomplete data on its effect on drug elimination in cirrhotics. The purpose of this study was to address this issue. Eight stable cirrhotics were studied prior to and following 7 days of cimetidine administration, (300 mg orally q.i.d.). Chlordiazepoxide (Librium), which is eliminated by the liver after demethylation, and indocyanine green, which is removed by the liver without biotransformation, were used as probes. Consistent with the concept that cimetidine interferes with drug metabolism by inhibiting microsomal oxidation, chlordiazepoxide clearance in the cirrhotics was inhibited by cimetidine (p less than 0.05), but indocyanine green clearance was unaffected. As shown by us previously (Roberts, R. K. et al., Gastroenterology 1978; 75:479-485), untreated cirrhotics had substantially lower chlordiazepoxide clearance than did controls. The inhibitory effect of cimetidine on chlordiazepoxide clearance was less in cirrhotics than in controls (p less than 0.05). In all subjects, there was excellent correlation between initial clearance and magnitude of depression in clearance after cimetidine, i.e., the larger the initial clearance, the larger the change (r = 0.97, p less than 0.0001). Forty-eight hours after stopping cimetidine, chlordiazepoxide clearance returned to baseline in cirrhotics and controls. Our data demonstrate that cimetidine and cirrhosis may act additively to impair drug metabolism. This effect of cimetidine on chlordiazepoxide clearance is smaller in cirrhotics than in controls, but, because of impaired initial drug elimination in cirrhosis, it may result in adverse clinical effects.

The effect of ranitidine and cimetidine on single-dose diltiazem pharmacokinetics

The effects of two histamine 2-receptor antagonists, cimetidine and ranitidine, on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of diltiazem were studied in 6 healthy subjects. A single 60-mg oral dose of diltiazem was administered alone, after ranitidine 150 mg twice daily for 7 days, and after cimetidine 300 mg 4 times a day for 7 days. Plasma samples were obtained over a 10-hour period and analyzed for the parent drug and one of its metabolites, deacetyldiltiazem (DAD). Concurrent cimetidine produced a significant (p less than 0.05) increase in diltiazem levels at most time points, in peak concentration and area under the concentration-time curve. These variables were also increased during concurrent ranitidine administration but did not reach statistical significance. The DAD plasma concentration was below measurable levels during the control phase but increased during concurrent cimetidine and ranitidine administration. Caution should be exercised when diltiazem is administered concurrently with cimetidine and possibly, ranitidine.

Cimetidine alters pethidine disposition in man

The effect of concurrent cimetidine administration on the disposition of pethidine was investigated in eight healthy male volunteers (18-31 years). The subjects received 70 mg i.v. pethidine HCl doses before and during cimetidine treatment (1200 mg/day p.o.). During cimetidine treatment, pethidine total body clearance (CL) decreased by 22% (0.611 +/- 0.101 [mean +/- s.d.] to 0.474 +/- 0.098 1 kg-1 h, P less than 0.05) and pethidine volume of distribution at steady state (Vss) decreased by 13% (4.79 +/- 0.82 to 4.16 +/- 0.75 l/kg, P less than 0.05). A cimetidine-induced reduction in pethidine oxidation to norpethidine was suggested by a 23% reduction in norpethidine area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (472 +/- 93 to 362 +/- 38 ng ml-1 h, P less than 0.05) and a 29% reduction in peak norpethidine concentration (26.7 +/- 5.3 to 18.9 +/- 1.9 ng/ml, P less than 0.05). There were no significant linear correlations of serum trough cimetidine concentration with percentage reductions in pethidine CL, pethidine Vss, norpethidine AUC (24), or norpethidine peak concentrations. It would appear that the cimetidine-pethidine kinetic interaction may be of sufficient magnitude to be clinically significant. Caution is advised when patients are treated concurrently with these two agents.

Relationship of morphine-induced miosis to plasma concentration in normal subjects

The relationship between morphine plasma concentration and pupil diameter was evaluated 2-10 h following intravenous administration of morphine sulfate (10 mg). Seven healthy male volunteers received 10 mg of morphine intravenously following pretreatment for 4 d with either cimetidine (300 mg po four times a day) or placebo in a single blind, balanced crossover study. Pupil diameters were measured directly from contact prints using calipers and a photographed millimeter scale. Cimetidine pretreatment had no significant effect on pupil size either before or after morphine administration or on morphine pharmacokinetics. The relationship between morphine plasma concentration (2-10 h postdose) and pupil diameter was evaluated from the pooled data from both morphine treatment periods by perpendicular least-square regression. In each individual, a strong relationship existed between morphine plasma concentrations and pupil diameter (r = -0.76 to -0.91; p less than 0.05). Weaker correlations for both pupil diameter (r = -0.65; p less than 0.0001) and the absolute change in pupil diameter from baseline (r = 0.72; p less than 0.0001) for the grouped data probably reflect intersubject variation in morphine sensitivity. Thus, the miotic response to an intravenous dose of morphine varies in proportion to morphine plasma concentration.

Cimetidine does not alter ibuprofen kinetics after a single dose

Cimetidine does not slow the disappearance of ibuprofen from the serum after a single dose in healthy male volunteers. This suggests that no change in ibuprofen dosing is necessary when cimetidine is co-administered.

Effect of cimetidine premedication on morphine-induced ventilatory depression

The potential respiratory interaction between morphine and cimetidine was studied by determining resting ventilation, PETCO2 and ventilatory response to added carbon dioxide in eight healthy volunteers on three separate occasions following administration of : (1) cimetidine 600 mg p.o., (2) morphine 10 mg IM, (3) morphine 10 mg IM preceded by cimetidine 600 mg p.o. Individual entry into the study was randomized and separated by at least one week. All measurements were determined at time 0, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600, 720 minutes and at the end of 24 hours. In addition, serum morphine levels were measured in six subjects during the first six hours following morphine administration. Cimetidine alone had negligible respiratory effects. Morphine alone reduced resting ventilation, elevated PETCO2 and reduced the ventilatory response to added CO2, while the morphine-cimetidine combination caused a more profound depression of the CO2 response and delay in its recovery. No significant difference between resting ventilation and PETCO2 was observed. We conclude that cimetidine premedication interacts with morphine to prolong the respiratory depression but the magnitude of this interaction is small and clinically insignificant in healthy subjects. Caution, however, should be exercised in susceptible patients.

The interaction between H2-receptor antagonists and beta-adrenoceptor blockers

The degrees of interactions between the H2-receptor antagonists, cimetidine and ranitidine, and several beta-adrenoceptor blockers were investigated in healthy volunteers following 7 days of oral monotherapy with penbutolol, propranolol, metoprolol, pindolol and atenolol, and after co-administration with each of the H2-receptor antagonists. The kinetic parameters of unmetabolised penbutolol and penbutolol glucuronide were unaffected, whereas the levels of 4-hydroxypenbutolol and 4-hydroxypenbutolol glucuronide were significantly reduced. Furthermore, cimetidine led to a marked increase in propranolol and metoprolol plasma levels. During co-administration with cimetidine, pindolol plasma levels were only slightly raised, whereas the pharmacokinetics of atenolol were not affected. With regard to pharmacodynamics, the inhibition of exercise-induced tachycardia by each of the beta-adrenoceptor blockers was not affected by cimetidine. Ranitidine did not alter atenolol plasma levels, but did raise the peak plasma concentration of metoprolol by about 30%. It is concluded that cimetidine interactions do occur and can be predicted for substances metabolised by the cytochrome P-450 pathway.