Famotidine, a Histamine H<sub>2</sub> Receptor Antagonist, Does Not Reduce Levodopa‐Induced Dyskinesia in Parkinson's Disease: A Proof‐of‐Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The neural mechanisms underlying levodopa‐induced dyskinesia ( LID ) in Parkinson's disease ( PD ) may involve histamine (H 2 ) receptors on striatopallidal pathways. We recently demonstrated that the clinically available oral histamine H 2 receptor antagonist (H 2 RA ), famotidine, can reduce l ‐dopa‐induced chorea in MPTP ‐lesioned macaques. We hypothesized that famotidine may be useful in the treatment of LID in PD patients. We performed a proof‐of‐concept, double‐blind, randomized, multiple cross‐over (4×) trial. Seven PD subjects with bothersome dyskinesia were randomized to oral famotidine 80, 120, and 160 mg/day and placebo. Each subject was randomized to receive each of the four treatment phases for 14 days followed by a 7‐day wash‐out period between each treatment phase. The primary outcome measure was change in the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale ( UD ys RS ; part III ) between placebo and famotidine. Secondary outcomes were UD ys RS (parts I and II ), Global Impression of Change, Lang‐Fahn Activities of Daily Living Dyskinesia Scale, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating part III , and adverse events ( AE s). Outcomes were evaluated pre‐ and post‐treatment per dose and analyzed using a mixed‐effects linear model. There was no significant effect of famotidine treatment on any of the primary or secondary outcome measures compared to placebo (each dose and all doses combined). There were no significant AE s. Even though the sample size of the current study is limited, famotidine seems to be safe in patients with PD and LID , but showed no potential as an antidyskinetic agent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".