Accepted Manuscript Use of cyproheptadine to stimulate appetite and body weight gain: A systematic review Megan E. Harrison, Mark L. Norris, Amy Robinson, Wendy Spettigue, Morgan Morrissey, Leanna Isserlin PII:
S0195-6663(18)31508-3
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.012
Reference:
APPET 4193
To appear in:
Appetite
Received Date: 19 October 2018 Revised Date:
11 February 2019
Accepted Date: 18 February 2019
Please cite this article as: Harrison M.E., Norris M.L., Robinson A., Spettigue W., Morrissey M. & Isserlin L., Use of cyproheptadine to stimulate appetite and body weight gain: A systematic review, Appetite (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.012. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 2 3 4 Use of cyproheptadine to stimulate appetite and body weight gain: a systematic review
RI PT
5 6 7
Megan E. Harrison, MD1,2*, Mark L. Norris, MD1,2, Amy Robinson, MD1,2, Wendy
8
Spettigue, MD2,3, Morgan Morrissey, BSc4, Leanna Isserlin, MD2,3
SC
9 10
12 13
M AN U
11
14
Keywords: appetite stimulation; avoidant restrictive food intake disorder;
15
cyproheptadine; eating disorder
16
TE D
17 18
*Correspondence to: Dr Megan Harrison, MD, FRCPC, Division of Adolescent
20
Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, 401 Smyth
21
Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L1. E-mail:
[email protected]
22
EP
19
23
1
24
Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
25
2
Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
26
3
Department of Psychiatry, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa,
27
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
28
4
29 30 31 32
AC C
Department of Paediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract
SC
RI PT
Objective: A systematic review identifying the use of cyproheptadine (CY) as an appetite stimulant was completed. Method: Studies of any design exploring the efficacy of CY as an appetite stimulant in all age groups and populations were included. Primary outcomes of studies included were weight gain, appetite stimulation, and/or caloric/nutritional intake increase. The review was completed in accordance with PRISMA standards. Results: A total of 46 articles across 21 different treatment populations met criteria for the review, including 32 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective cohort studies, 4 retrospective cohort studies, 4 case reports and 2 case series. Of these, 39 demonstrated that CY resulted in significant weight gain in the sample under study. Studies exploring the use of CY in those with malignant/progressive disease states, such as HIV and cancer, showed minimal to no benefit of the medication. Transient mild to moderate sedation was the most commonly reported side effect. Studies included were heterogeneous in terms of methods as well as study patient demographics, characteristics and concurrent medical conditions. Few studies provided objective measures of appetite change. Discussion: CY appears to be a safe, generally well-tolerated medication that has utility in helping facilitate weight gain in patients drawn from a variety of underweight populations. Future prospective randomized controlled studies in low weight patients that include objective measures of appetite and intake are needed to better understand the mechanism by which CY augments weight gain.
M AN U
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
EP
57
AC C
56
TE D
55
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
67
1. Introduction Cyproheptadine (CY) is a serotonin 5-HT2 and histamine H1 antagonist that was
69
introduced for the treatment of allergic states. The medication was studied in 1959 in
70
children with hay fever, with the authors noting a significant increase in appetite, body
71
weight (BW) and linear growth as side effects (Lavenstein, Dacaney, & Metre, 1962). In
72
the years that followed, these side effects were confirmed in those with and without
73
allergies (Bergen, 1964; Drash, Elliott, Langs, Lavenstein, & Cooke, 1966; Francini,
74
Santana, & Kitrosen, 1967). Over the last 50 years, numerous investigators have studied
75
the medication’s utility as an appetite stimulant in malnourished and/or underweight
76
patients with a variety of health conditions, such as cancer, metabolic disease, failure to
77
thrive, malnutrition, HIV, anorexia nervosa (AN) and cystic fibrosis (CF) Although
78
considered an ‘older’ drug, and one not typically used now in the treatment of eating
79
disorders (EDs), it is worth reconsidering CY’s potential role in the treatment of under-
80
nourished adults and children, including those with avoidant restrictive food intake
81
disorder (ARFID).
82
The primary objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of CY’s use and
83
ability to act as a stimulant of appetite and weight gain, using internationally accepted
84
search criteria such as that outlined by PRISMA guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, &
85
Altman, 2009). Our secondary objectives were to: review the safety of CY and identify
86
commonly noted side effects attributed to CY; and describe whether CY appears to be
87
more effective in particular age groups or for particular diagnoses.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
68
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
88
In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered
89
with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 19
90
September 2016 (registration number CRD42016047875).
RI PT
91 2.0 Method
93
2.1 Search Strategy
94
The following databases were searched focusing on CY use as an appetite stimulant:
95
MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations
96
(1946- June 22, 2018) and Embase (1980- June 22, 2018) and the CENTRAL Trials
97
Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration (May 2018 Issue) using the Ovid interface.
98
Searches were designed and conducted by a librarian experienced in systematic reviews,
99
using a method designed to optimize term selection (Bramer, Giustini, & Kramer, 2016).
M AN U
SC
92
Search strategies are presented in Appendix 1. Non-English articles were included
101
assuming they could be translated sufficiently, using Google Translate, for evaluation.
102
Bibliographies of manuscripts were also searched to ensure any relevant articles were
103
included in the initial screen.
104
2.2 Eligibility Criteria
105
Studies of any design, including published case reports, that involved pediatric and adult
106
patients with any medical or psychiatric condition and in any setting were included.
107
Studies were included where CY was the exposure and where the primary outcomes for
108
the studies were: 1) weight gain, and/or 2) appetite stimulation, and/or 3)
109
caloric/nutritional intake increase. Studies that were reviews, commentaries or conference
110
abstracts, or could not be translated during the review timeframe were excluded.
AC C
EP
TE D
100
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2.3 Abstract and Article Selection
112
After initial online duplicate removal, records retrieved by the electronic search were
113
downloaded and imported into a Reference Manager database, where any remaining
114
duplicate references were removed. Throughout the review, newly identified records
115
were integrated into the set for screening. Records were uploaded to CrowdScreen (Nama
116
et al., 2017) and appraised against the inclusion criteria. First, two reviewers
117
independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the papers identified from the search,
118
using the inclusion criteria. In cases where reviewers did not agree on the study’s
119
eligibility, a third reviewer helped determine suitability. The full text of eligible studies
120
was assessed for suitability by two review team members, with input from a third
121
provider when necessary. Results were uploaded into a secure RedCap electronic
122
database (Harris et al., 2010). Reviewers were not blinded to study authors or institutions
123
during the review.
TE D
124
M AN U
SC
RI PT
111
3. Results
126
In total, 591 records were identified through the initial database search, resulting in 530
127
records for screening after duplicates were removed. Reference lists identified 8
128
additional reports that were assessed for eligibility. A total of 46 articles met criteria for
129
the review (Figure 1); 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 prospective cohort
130
studies, 4 retrospective cohort studies, 4 case reports and 2 case series.
132
AC C
131
EP
125
3.1 Cyproheptadine use in healthy adults
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A total of 5 studies were identified that examined CY’s as a stimulant of appetite and
134
weight gain in healthy, “normal weight” adults (Table 1). In each of these studies,
135
investigators sought to better understand CY’s mechanism of action and effect on the
136
biochemical and metabolic profile of patients. Small sample sizes and varying durations
137
of treatment precluded formal comparisons of studies. Only one study (Comer et al.,
138
1997) included an objective measure for appetite. In this 18 day residential trial of 7
139
normal weight volunteers, the authors demonstrated that CY increased caloric intake as
140
measured by the number of eating occasions but not as a result of increased meal size.
SC
RI PT
133
M AN U
141
3.2 Cyproheptadine use in underweight adults
143
Seven studies, including 6 RCTs were identified that explored the use of CY in
144
underweight but otherwise healthy adults (Table 2).
145
The RCTs showed mainly positive results regarding CY’s efficacy in promoting weight
146
gain (Noble, 1969; Pawlowski, 1975; Sardesai et al., 1970; Silbert, 1971; Silverstone &
147
Schuyler, 1975) with only one RCT showing no significant weight gain in elderly
148
patients treated with CY (Andronic & Di Mascio, 1971). Silbert examined the use of CY
149
in children and adults with multifactorial loss of appetite over 4 weeks, using CY doses
150
that ranged from 2 to 8 mg/day (Silbert, 1971). A statistically greater increase in weight
151
in the CY group was reported at weeks 8 and 12 regardless of dose. Pawlowski et al
152
demonstrated a greater increase in weight for patients chronically underweight at each 2
153
week interval for their CY group (12 mg/day), with the CY group gaining 3 kg as
154
compared to 1.3 kg for the placebo group at the conclusion of the 12 week trial.
155
AC C
EP
TE D
142
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.3 Cyproheptadine use in Anorexia Nervosa
157
Five RCTs examined the use of CY in adults with AN, four of which were conducted on
158
hospital inpatient units and one of which took place in a hospital outpatient setting (Table
159
3). Additionally, Benady published a case report that described favourable weight gain
160
effects of CY in a 12 year old female with AN (Benady, 1970). In the RCTs, patients
161
received doses of CY ranging from 2mg/day to 32mg/day in divided doses (e.g. three or
162
four times daily). The primary outcome in the RCTs was weight gain (Goldberg, Halmi,
163
Eckert, Casper, & Davis, 1979; Halmi, Eckert, & Falk, 1982, 1983; Halmi, Eckert, LaDu,
164
& Cohen, 1986; Vigersky & Loriaux, 1977). Secondary outcomes were included in 3
165
studies and consisted of appetite, and mood symptoms as rated by the Hamilton Rating
166
Scale and Beck Depression Inventory (Halmi et al., 1982, 1983, 1986). Four of the five
167
RCTs (Goldberg et al., 1979; Halmi et al., 1982, 1983, 1986) demonstrated a statistically
168
significant increase in weight in CY-treated patients. Two of the five RCTs (Halmi et al.,
169
1983, 1986) appeared to be a continuation of an earlier reported RCT (Halmi et al.,
170
1982). In the largest of these studies, Halmi et al. (1986) reported a differential drug
171
effect attributed to CY in patients with and without symptoms of bulimia. The drug
172
significantly increased the efficacy of treatment for those whose endorsed primary
173
restrictive symptoms, whereas the CY impaired treatment efficacy in patients who
174
endorsed symptoms of bulimia. In the single study that failed to demonstrate a difference
175
in weight gain between CY and placebo(Vigersky & Loriaux, 1977), the maximum dose
176
used was far lower than in the other studies (12mg/day vs 32mg/day); the study was
177
small (n= 13 for the CY group); and the study took place in an outpatient setting as
178
compared to an inpatient setting. Table 3 further describes these studies.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
156
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
179 3.4 Cyproheptadine use in adults with mixed disease states
181
A total of 5 RCTs and one parallel, non-blinded, non-randomized trial was included
182
(Table 4). Four of these studies reported significant increases in weight. All of these
183
studies had significant limitations, including using heterogeneous sample populations in
184
terms of medical diagnosis (ie. “psychiatric leanness,” dystonia, neurasthenia, duodenal
185
ulcers, gastritis, hepatitis, chronic urticaria, etc) (Irsy & Szatloczky, 1977; Tiszai &
186
Szasz, 1972), as well as failing to account for confounding factors (i.e. socioeconomic
187
status) (Rahman, 1975), short study periods (Irsy & Szatloczky, 1977; Tiszai & Szasz,
188
1972), and lack of objective measures of appetite stimulation. In disease states involving
189
anorexia and cachexia as symptoms of disease progression, no observable effect of CY
190
on weight gain was noted. Irsy et al reported stimulation of appetite and increased weight
191
gain in healthy volunteers as well as the majority of individuals studied with varying
192
chronic illnesses, although no appreciable effects on appetite or weight were
193
demonstrated in a group of patients suffering from malignant diseases. It must be noted
194
however that that authors failed to include the mechanism by which appetite change was
195
measured. In a larger, multicenter trial involving patients with advanced malignant
196
cancer, Kardinal et al found mildly enhanced appetites reported by patients on CY, but no
197
halt in progressive weight loss (average weight loss of 2 kg/month in the treatment group
198
versus 2.2 kg/month in the placebo group, p = 0.72), even when adjusted for potential
199
prognostic factors (Kardinal et al., 1990).
200
In a study comparing CY versus megestrol acetate in HIV outpatients, Summerbell et al
201
showed an increase in mean daily energy intake in both treatment groups compared to
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
180
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
pretreatment assessment; energy intake increased by 500 kcal/day in both groups (p <
203
0.05), however decreased after treatment (Summerbell, Youle, McDonald, Catalan, &
204
Gazzard, 1992). Despite this, variable weight gain was seen with CY-treated patients
205
(weight gain in 3/7 patients, weight loss in 2/7, stable weight in 1/7, one patient death). In
206
another double blind placebo controlled study of CY’s effect on patients with irritable
207
colon syndrome, Mainguet et al. (1972) reported greater weight gain and appetite
208
stimulation in those treated with CY. In this study, appetite stimulation was measured by
209
appetite level in combination with caloric intake, although the specific details by which
210
this data was collected were not specified.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
202
211
3.5 Cyproheptadine use in malnourished and underweight children
213
Ten articles investigating the utility of CY for appetite stimulation in pediatric
214
malnourished and underweight patients were included in this review (Table 5).
215
Randomized controlled trials were most common study design identified (n=8). None of
216
the studies included objective measures of appetite. Although a total of 509 patients were
217
included across all of the RCTs, variation in study sample age (1.3 to 16 years), study
218
design, drug dosing and active comparator descriptions, as well as length of trials,
219
prevented the completion of a meta-analysis. All studies that investigated the effect of
220
CY on weight in underweight children showed some degree of improvement on
221
medication. Further, studies that sought to also investigate CY’s effect on growth also
222
showed a positive effect when study designs were 3 months in length or more
223
(Mahachoklertwattana, Wanasuwankul, Poomthavorn, Choubtum, & Sriphrapradang,
224
2009; Penfold, 1971). Only one study examined growth effects with outcomes at less
AC C
EP
TE D
212
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
than 3 months, with no effect demonstrated (Najib, Moghtaderi, Karamizadeh,
226
Fallahzadehm, & Najib, K.; Moghtaderi, M.; Karamizadeh, Z.; Fallahzadehm, 2014). CY
227
was typically well tolerated in all studies in this category, with no significant adverse
228
effects reported. The most common side effect noted was sedation, which was noted to
229
typically improve a few days after starting medication. In addition to the factors listed
230
above, other important limitations exist within these studies, including possible effects of
231
concurrent medical issues amongst sample size (ie. high rate of parasitic infections noted
232
in one study) (Sanzgiri, Mohamad, & Raja, 1969) and high sample attrition
233
(Mahachoklertwattana et al., 2009; Najib et al., 2014; Penfold, 1971).
234
M AN U
SC
RI PT
225
3.6 Cyproheptadine use in malnourished and/or underweight children with concurrent
236
chronic medical conditions
237
Twelve studies, that examined the effects of CY on weight gain and/or appetite in various
238
childhood conditions were included in the review (Table 6). As noted in other sections,
239
these studies also varied significantly in design, size (n ranging from 1 – 70), patient
240
population characteristics (ie. disease conditions) and length of study treatment (ranging
241
from 7 weeks to 12 months).
242
CY’s effectiveness has been studied in underweight children with CF by 2 research
243
groups (Epifanio et al., 2012; Homnick et al., 2004; Homnick, Marks, Hare, & Bonnema,
244
2005). Homnick et al. (2004) initially performed a well-designed 12 week randomized
245
blinded placebo controlled study of 18 patients with CF and ideal body weight for height
246
<100%. Weight increased significantly more in the treatment group as compared to the
247
placebo group (3.45 kg vs 1.1 kg, P <0.0001), as did percent ideal body weight, skin fold
AC C
EP
TE D
235
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
measurements, and BMI (all P<0.0001). Following the RCT, an open-label design
249
continued for an additional 9 months and all placebo patients were prescribed CY (total
250
n=12; 7 from the original treatment group in the 2004 study and 5 from the placebo group
251
from the original study) (Homnick et al., 2005). Patients who changed from placebo to
252
CY gained weight over 3-6 months, with less weight gain near the end of the study.
253
Authors cited variable adherence to medication dosing as a possible explanation for less
254
weight gain in the second portion of the study, as well as possible decreased effect of the
255
medication over time. In another well-designed 12 week double blind placebo controlled
256
study, Epifanio found significant increases in weight and BMI in pediatric patients with
257
CF (n=25) who were treated with CY as compared to those on placebo (Epifanio et al.,
258
2012).
259
There are 2 reports of CY’s use in pediatric patients with cancer (Couluris et al., 2008;
260
Erdem, Emir, Demir, & Tunç, 2014). In an open label prospective cohort study, Couluris
261
found that CY was effective in promoting weight gain in children with cancer and
262
treatment related cachexia (Couluris et al., 2008). Fifty of the 66 patients in the study
263
responded to CY treatment with significant weight gain (mean weight gain 2.6 kg CI
264
1.93-3.27); interestingly, those with hematologic cancers responded more than those with
265
non-hematologic cancers (p=0.04). In a retrospective patient chart review of children
266
with cachexia related to cancer treatment (n=14), Erdem reported an increase in weight in
267
11/14 patients and self-reported increase in appetite in 10 patients (71%) in those who
268
were treated with CY (Erdem et al., 2014).
269
CY has also been effective in increasing weight in those with anorexia and low weight
270
due to other conditions, including asthma (Bergen, 1964; Lavenstein et al., 1962),
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
248
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
metabolic disease (Lerman-Sagie & Mimouni, 1995), tuberculous meningitis (Muranjan
272
et al., 1994), GH deficiency (Kaplowitz & Jennings, 1987), ADHD treatment-related
273
weight loss (Daviss & Scott, 2004), and Silver-Russell syndrome (Lemoine et al., 2018)
274
(Table 6). Although several studies noted improvements in appetite based upon self
275
report or parental observation, objective measures of appetite were not included.
RI PT
271
276 3.7 Tolerability of Cyproheptadine
278
In general, CY was well tolerated in all studies with no serious adverse effects reported.
279
As noted throughout the tables, mild to moderate drowsiness was commonly reported
280
across many studies but was rarely severe enough to lead to medication discontinuation.
281
In one study, authors noted that sedation appeared to be dose dependent (Silbert, 1971).
282
Irritability was also reported as a side effect in one study (Lemoine et al., 2018) and
283
nausea and dizziness in another (Irsy & Szatloczky, 1977).
284
Studies that explored possible biochemical and laboratory changes in those taking CY
285
showed no significant alterations to results either pre- versus post- trial or in treatment
286
versus placebo groups, including fasting glucose (Najjar & Khachadurian, 1969; Stiel,
287
Liddle, & Lacy, 1970), plasma insulin (Najjar & Khachadurian, 1969; Stiel et al., 1970),
288
plasma growth hormone (Stiel et al., 1970), plasma free fatty acids(Stiel et al., 1970),
289
plasma free amino acids (Najjar & Khachadurian, 1969), glucose tolerance (Najjar &
290
Khachadurian, 1969), or urea (Noble, 1969). One study found greater levels of IGF-1 in
291
research participants taking CY (Mahachoklertwattana et al., 2009). A significant
292
increase in urinary sodium and creatinine excretion was explained by an increase in
293
overall food intake with cyproheptadine use by Stiel et al.(Stiel et al., 1970).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
277
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
294 4.0 Discussion
296
A total of 46 studies across 21 different treatment populations were identified in this
297
systematic review. Of these, 39 demonstrated that CY prescription resulted in significant
298
weight gain in the sample under study, of which 27 were RCTS, and 12 case studies.
299
Only a few studies included appetite as an outcome, and of these, only 6 included
300
measures of appetite and/or caloric intake (Bergen, 1964; Comer, Haney, Fischman, &
301
Foltin, 1997; Genazzani et al., 2001; Mainguet, 1972; Silverstone & Schuyler, 1975;
302
Summerbell et al., 1992). Comer et al.’s study (1997) findings were interesting as their
303
results indicated that CY affected postprandial satiety or hunger mechanisms, as opposed
304
to food reward or meal-derived satiation. The small study sample and short
305
administration cycle (2 days) limits any conclusions or observations regarding sustained
306
changes in appetite and weight. Due to the heterogeneity of study methods as well as
307
study patient demographics, characteristics and medical conditions included, we are
308
unable to provide a specific level or grade of evidence for the use of CY as an appetite
309
stimulant.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
310
RI PT
295
While overall CY appears to improve weight gain in many diverse patient populations, it
312
is important to note that studies that explored the use of CY in those with malignant or
313
progressive disease states, such as HIV and certain types of cancer, showed minimal to
314
no benefit of the medication (Erdem et al., 2014; Irsy & Szatloczky, 1977; Kardinal et al.,
315
1990; Summerbell et al., 1992). It is also interesting to note that the studies with the
316
eldest patient groups, Andronic (n=30; mean age 73 years) (Andronic & Di Mascio,
AC C
311
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1971) and Kardinal (n=295; mean age 65 years)(Kardinal et al., 1990), found no
318
significant changes in weight in those taking CY as compared to placebo. The latter two
319
studies, however, have significant differences that make them difficult to compare and
320
draw conclusions, including the variability in patient diagnoses (advanced malignant
321
diseases vs unspecified psychiatric conditions), definitions of “underweight”/ history of
322
weight loss, CY dose (8 mg tid in Kardinal study vs 4 mg tid in Andronic study),
323
concurrent medications being used by study participants as well as length of treatment
324
(34 days Kardinal vs 56 days Andronic). Of interest, in Halmi et al.’s study (1986), CY
325
negatively influenced the treatment efficacy of those with bulimia subset. Although the
326
authors could not definitively account for the reasons that contribute to this occurrence,
327
they speculated that differences in appetite regulation between those with and without
328
concomitant bulimia may have accounted for the differences. Given the propensity for
329
CY to increase treatment efficacy and decrease days required to reach treatment goal
330
weight in patients with AN, further study is required to better understand the mechanisms
331
that might account for differences between subgroups. Each of the remaining studies that
332
failed to show any benefit of CY as an appetite stimulant had many limitations as
333
discussed in sections above (Fantino, Brondel, Swiergiel, & Lebec, 1990; Genazzani et
334
al., 2001; Tiszai & Szasz, 1972; Vigersky & Loriaux, 1977).
335
Despite the high number of studies with positive outcomes, many designs were limited,
336
with small sample sizes, various dosing, short-term follow up, and other confounding
337
factors that had the potential to affect findings. As an example, studies that involved
338
subjects with mixed chronic diseases were typically fraught with a number of
339
uncontrolled confounders (i.e. disease activity) with the potential to influence results, and
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
317
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
thus limit their generalizability. Of further concern, not all studies controlled for, or
341
referenced measures taken to limit, the extent to which factors such as poverty or
342
admission to hospital might affect access to nutrition and thus also affect outcome. The
343
issue of socioeconomic status has specific relevance given that results from one study
344
that did control for access to nutrition/availability of nutrition suggested a faster but less
345
robust treatment response in subjects treated with medication with uncompensated
346
malnutrition (Burrows & Muzzo, 1981). As a result, weight gain was not greater
347
compared to the placebo group at the 4-week mark (although weight gain was greater in
348
those with compensated malnutrition at week 4). Outcomes between those with
349
uncompensated and compensated nutrition at the 2 month mark were both significantly
350
greater for those children taking CY than for those not treated with medication. Although
351
not mentioned in other studies, Burrows & Muzzo speculate that the underlying reasons
352
for the malnutrition also have the potential to affect outcome (Burrows & Muzzo, 1981).
353
Similarly, there is little information available regarding activity levels, and whether some
354
patients who did not respond may have been more active than others, or not had adequate
355
nutrition to compensate for activity levels. In addition, more dated studies did not
356
consistently report on whether there were randomization processes, blinding procedures
357
(or in cases where blinding was reported, the method was not specified), research ethics
358
board approval, details of how medications compliance was monitored, or how data
359
regarding appetite increases were measured. Also, although most studies provided
360
cursory descriptions as to how patients were investigated medically, it is possible that
361
undiagnosed underlying medical issues may have impacted treatment responses. As an
362
example, in Sanzgiri et al.’s study, most of the included children had co-occurring
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
340
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
parasitic infections, which were considered endemic to that population in India (Sanzgiri
364
et al., 1969). Many studies had only short-term follow up, despite the possibility that
365
appetite stimulation and weight gain may only be short-lived, and few of the studies
366
commented on whether the weight gain was considered clinically significant.
RI PT
363
367
In addition to the limitations outlined above, calculation of malnourishment and
369
determinations of underweight status varied depending on the study. Many studies did
370
not describe how they determined patients to be “low weight” or “lower than ideal”
371
(Homnick et al., 2004; Irsy & Szatloczky, 1977; Mainguet, 1972; Penfold, 1971; Sanzgiri
372
et al., 1969; Sardesai et al., 1970; Silbert, 1971). Burrows & Muzzo defined first degree
373
malnutrition as weight between the 10th and 25th percentiles, second degree between 10th
374
and 5th percentiles, and third degree malnutrition if under the 5th percentile (Burrows &
375
Muzzo, 1981). Malnutrition was considered compensated if the weight for height was
376
above the 25th percentile and decompensated if the ratio was below the 25th percentile.
377
Other examples that illustrate the diversity of malnourishment or “low weight”
378
determination include the arbitrary use of Metropolitan Life Insurance Tables to define
379
“underweight”(Andronic & Di Mascio, 1971; Noble, 1969; Pawlowski, 1975; Silverstone
380
& Schuyler, 1975), the use of the Gomez calculation to determine severity of
381
malnutrition (Najib et al., 2014), defining low weight as more than 2 standard deviations
382
below the mean (Mahachoklertwattana et al., 2009), or as <50th% on Stuart
383
anthropometric charts (Kibel, 1969; Lavenstein et al., 1962). The variation in definition
384
of underweight or malnourishment affects how results can be compared and generalized.
385
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
368
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Unfortunately, despite the number of studies identified through this review, very few
387
included objective measures of appetite. As such, our analysis does not provide much
388
insight into the manner by which CY acts as a stimulant of appetite. Comer et al.’s (1997)
389
study provided interesting results that suggested that CY contributed to increased number
390
of eating occasions, suggesting that the mechanism of action may be linked more to
391
satiety/ hunger signaling as compared to food reward pathways. This has relevance given
392
the medications effect at 5-HT2 and H1 receptors.
SC
393
RI PT
386
Despite the observed limitations in published studies, there is certainly enough data to
395
suggest that further controlled studies that involve patients with conditions where appetite
396
is poor are warranted.
397
Although there were no serious side effects noted in the studies reviewed in this paper, it
398
is important to note that there are cases reported in the literature of anticholinergic
399
toxicity in pediatric patients in the context of CY overdose (ie. Accidental over-ingestion)
400
(Blaustein, Gaeta, Balentine, & Gindi, 1995; McGovern, McNamee, Marcus, & Kashani,
401
2017; Richmond & Seger, 1985).
402
EP
TE D
M AN U
394
5.0 Conclusion
404
Based on this literature review and studies completed to date, CY appears to be a safe,
405
generally well-tolerated medication that has utility in helping facilitate weight gain in
406
patients drawn from a variety of underweight populations. Moving forward, further
407
studies that examine CY should incorporate specific measures of appetite stimulation in
AC C
403
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
order to better decipher how appetite signaling, satiety, and food reward pathways
409
influence the medications effect on nutritional intake.
410
These studies should also serve to increase knowledge relating to medication indication
411
and tolerance, optimal dosing, and side effect potential, in varying populations. Future
412
randomized controlled studies with more homogeneous populations would also allow for
413
meta-analyses that can better inform evidence-based guidelines.
SC
414
RI PT
408
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
418 419
Declarations of interest: none.
420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444
Acknowledgements: We thank Jenna Pepper, MA and Katie O'Hearn, Msc, (Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute) for methodological assistance and Margaret Sampson, MLIS, PhD, AHIP (Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario) for developing the electronic search strategies. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Mrs. Patricia Graziano for her help in article retrieval and table editing.
TE D
References
M AN U
415 416 417
AC C
EP
Andronic, A., & Di Mascio, A. (1971). Appetite-stimulating and weight-gain properties of cyproheptadine (Periactin) in geriatric subjects. Current Therapeutic Research, 13(1), 40–41. Benady, D. (1970). Cyproheptadine Hydrochloride (Periactin) and Anorexia Nervosa: A Case Report. Brit. J. Psychiat., 117, 681–682. Bergen, S. S. (1964). Appetite Stimulating Properties of Cyproheptadine. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 108(3), 270–273. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1964.02090010272008 Blaustein, B., Gaeta, T., Balentine, J., & Gindi, M. (1995). Cyproheptadine-induced central anticholinergic syndrome in a child: a case report. Pediatric Emergency Care, 11(4), 235–237. Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., & Kramer, B. M. R. (2016). Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: A prospective study. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7 Burrows, R., & Muzzo, S. (1981). Effect of appetite stimulation on the rate of weight
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
recovery in children with protein-calorie malnutrition (Spanish). Rev Chil Pediatr, 52(3), 187–193. Comer, S., Haney, M., Fischman, M., & Foltin, R. (1997). Cyproheptadine produced Modest Increases in Total Caloric Intake by Humans. Physiology & Behavior, 62(4), 831–839. Couluris, M., Mayer, J. L. R., Freyer, D. R., Sandler, E., Xu, P., & Krischer, J. P. (2008). The effect of cyproheptadine hydrochloride (Periactin) and megestrol acetate (Megace) on weight in children with cancer/treatment-related cachexia. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, 30(11), 791–797. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPH.0b013e3181864a5e Daviss, W. B., & Scott, J. (2004). A Chart Review of Cyproheptadine for StimulantInduced Weight Loss. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 14(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1089/104454604773840508 Drash, A., Elliott, J., Langs, H., Lavenstein, A., & Cooke, R. (1966). The Effect of Cyproheptadine on Carbohydrate Metabolism. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 7(3), 340–346. Epifanio, M., Marostica, P. C., Mattiello, R., Feix, L., Nejedlo, R., Fischer, G. B., & Stein, R. T. (2012). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cyproheptadine for appetite stimulation in cystic fibrosis. Jornal de Pediatria, 88(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.2223/JPED.2174 Erdem, A. Y., Emir, S., Demir, H. A., & Tunç, B. (2014). Use of Cyproheptadine as an Appetite Stimulant in Children with Cancer. Güncel Pediatri, 12(2), 63–66. https://doi.org/10.4274/jcp.18189 Fantino, M., Brondel, L., Swiergiel, A. H., & Lebec, O. (1990). Reduction of negative alliesthesia for sweet gustatory stimuli by cyproheptadine, a serotonin antagonist. Life Sciences, 46(19), 1381–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3205(90)90338-R Francini, D., Santana, J., & Kitrosen, J. (1967). Ciproheptadina Droga Antihistaminica y Antiserotonimica con Accion Sobre el Peso Coroporal Communicacion Previa. La Prensa Medica Argentina, 54(18), 826–828. Genazzani, A. D., Strucchi, C., Malavasi, B., Tortolani, F., Vecchi, F., Luisi, S., & Petraglia, F. (2001). Effects of cyproheptadine clorhydrate, a serotonin receptor antagonist, on endocrine parameters in weight-loss related amenorrhea. Gynecological Endocrinology, 15(4), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/gye.15.4.279.285 Goldberg, S., Halmi, K., Eckert, E., Casper, R., & Davis, J. (1979). Cyproheptadine in Anorexia Nervosa. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 134(1), 67–70. Halmi, K., Eckert, E., & Falk, J. (1982). Cyproheptadine for Anorexia Nervosa. The Lancet, (1279), 1976–1977. Halmi, K., Eckert, E., & Falk, J. (1983). Cyproheptadine, an antidepressant and weightinducing drug for anorexia nervosa. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 19(1), 103–105. Halmi, K., Eckert, E., LaDu, T., & Cohen, J. (1986). Anorexia Nervosa. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 43(4), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199907000-00019 Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2010). Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Information, 42(2), 377–381.
AC C
445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.Research Homnick, D. N., Homnick, B. D., Reeves, A. J., Marks, J. H., Pimentel, R. S., & Bonnema, S. K. (2004). Cyproheptadine is an effective appetite stimulant in cystic fibrosis. Pediatric Pulmonology, 38(2), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.20043 Homnick, D. N., Marks, J. H., Hare, K. L., & Bonnema, S. K. (2005). Long-term trial of cyproheptadine as an appetite stimulant in cystic fibrosis. Pediatric Pulmonology, 40(3), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.20265 Irsy, G., & Szatloczky, E. (1977). Effect of Peritol in Stimulating Appetitie and Promoting Weight Gain. Ther. Hung., 25(3), 115–121. Kaplowitz, P. B., & Jennings, S. (1987). Enhancement of linear growth and weight gain by cyproheptadine in children with hypopituitarism receiving growth hormone therapy. The Journal of Pediatrics, 110(1), 140–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00223476(87)80310-4 Kardinal, C. G., Loprinizi, C. L., Schaid, D. J., Hass, A. C., Dose, A. M., Athmann, L. M., … Schray, M. F. (1990). A controlled trial of cyproheptadine in cancer patients with anorexia and/or cachexia. A Mayo Clinic/North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial [abstract]. Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 9, 325, Abstract 1258. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/945/CN00715945/frame.html Kibel, M. (1969). Appetite and Weight Gain in Children: A Double-Blind Trial Using Cyproheptadine and Methandrostenolone. The Central Americn Journal of Medicine, 15(10), 229–232. Lavenstein, A. F., Dacaney, E. P., & Metre, T. E. Van. (1962). Effect of Cyproheptadine. JAMA, 180(11), 90–94. Lemoine, A., Harbison, M. D., Salem, J., Tounian, P., Netchine, I., & Dubern, B. (2018). Effect of Cyproheptadine on Weight and Growth Velocity in Children With SilverRussell Syndrome. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 66(2), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001708 Lerman-Sagie, T., & Mimouni, M. (1995). Reversal of anorexia in a child with partial ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency by cyproheptadine therapy. Clinical Pediatrics, 34(3), 163–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/000992289503400310 Mahachoklertwattana, P., Wanasuwankul, S., Poomthavorn, P., Choubtum, L., & Sriphrapradang, A. (2009). Short-term cyproheptadine therapy in underweight children: Effects on growth and serum insulin-like growth factor-I. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 22(5), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPEM.2009.22.5.425 Mainguet, P. (1972). Effect of Cyproheptadine on Anorexia and Loss of Weight in Adults. The Practitioner, 208(248), 797–800. McGovern, T., McNamee, J., Marcus, S., & Kashani, J. (2017). When Too Much Is Enough: Pediatric Cyproheptadine Overdose with Confirmatory Level. Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine, 1(3), 205–207. https://doi.org/10.5811/cpcem.2017.2.33313 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
AC C
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Muranjan, M. N., Mordekar, S. R., Bava, H. S., Alavi, S., Kher, A. S., Nadkarni, U. B., & Kamat, J. R. (1994). Cyproheptadine in severe anorexia. Indian Pediatr, 31, 1429– 1430. Najib, K., Moghtaderi, M., Karamizadeh, Z., Fallahzadehm, E., & Najib, K.; Moghtaderi, M.; Karamizadeh, Z.; Fallahzadehm, E. (2014). Beneficial Effect of Cyproheptadine on Body Mass Index in Undernourished Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Iran J Pediatr, 24(6), 753–758. Najjar, S., & Khachadurian, A. (1969). The Effect of Cyproheptadine on Body Weight Plasma Glucose and Insulin. Leb. Med. J., 22, 1–9. Nama, N., Iliriani, K., Xia, M. Y., Chen, B. P., Zhou, L. L., Kappel, C., McNally, J. (2017). A pilot validation study of crowdsourcing systematic reviews : update of a searchable database of pediatric clinical trials of high- dose vitamin D. Translational Pediatrics, 6(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.21037/tp.2016.12.01 Noble, R. (1969). Cyproheptadine on Appetite and Weight Gain Effect of in Adults. J Amer Med Assoc, 209(13), 1–2. Pawlowski, G. (1975). Cyproheptadine: Weight-Gain and Appetitie Stimulation in Essential Anorexic Adults. Current Therapeutic Research, 18(5), 673–678. Penfold, J. (1971). Effect of Cyproheptadine and a Multivitamin Preparation on Appetite Stimulation, Weight Gain, and Linear Growth. The Medical Journal of Australia, 307–310. Rahman, K. (1975). Appetite Stimulation and Weight Gain with Cyproheptadine (Periactin) in Tuberculosis Patients (Double-Blind Clinical Study). Med J Malaysia, 29(4), 270–274. Richmond, M., & Seger, D. (1985). Central anticholinergic syndrome in a child: A case report. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 3(6), 453–456. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0736-4679(85)90004-6 Sanzgiri, R., Mohamad, H., & Raja, Z. (1969). Appetite Stimulation and Weight Gain with Cyproheptadine. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 16(1), 12–15. Sardesai, H., Sardesai, H., Melinkeri, R., Diwate, A., Karandikar, R., & Joshi, P. (1970). Weight gain with cyproheptadine hydrochloride ('Periactin’). A double blind trial in underweight medical students. Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, 24(11), 716– 721. Silbert, M. (1971). The Weight Gain Effect of periactin in anorexic Patients. S. A. Medical Journal, 374–377. Silverstone, T., & Schuyler, D. (1975). The Effect of Cyproheptadine on Hunger, Calorie Intake, and Body Weight in Man. Psychopharmacologia, 40, 335–340. Stiel, J. N., Liddle, G. W., & Lacy, W. W. (1970). Studies of mechanism of cyproheptadine induced weight gain in human subjects. Metabolism, 19(3), 192-. Retrieved from isi:A1970F660200002 Summerbell, C., Youle, M., McDonald, V., Catalan, J., & Gazzard, B. (1992). Megestrol acetate vs cyproheptadine in the treatment of weight loss associated with HIV infection. Int J STD AIDS, 3(4), 278–280. Tiszai, A., & Szasz, K. (1972). Peritol (cyproheptadine) in clinical practice. Therapia Hungarica, 20(1), 18–23. Vigersky, R., & Loriaux, D. (1977). The Effect of Cyproheptadine in Anorexia Nervosa: A Double-Blind Trial. Anorexia Nervosa, 349–356.
AC C
537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Appendix 1 – Electronic search strategies
RI PT
Note: Searches were conducted as an Ovid multi-database search. Line 1 is optimized for MEDLINE. Lines 2-5 are optimized for Embase. Line 6 is optimized for CENTRAL. The next lines isolate the records to the database the search was designed for, combine those sets and then remove duplicate records and final isolate the records from each database again so each can be downloaded and imported into the citation manager using a database-specific import filter.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
1. ((Cyproheptadine/ or (adekin or Antergan or antisemin or Apeplus or apeton 4 or Apitup or Axoprol or Biohept or CHEMBL516 or Ciplactin or Cipractine or ciproeptadine or Ciproheptadina or ciproral or ciprotol or Ciprovit or ciprovit or Ciptadine or cryoheptidine or crypoheptadine or cycloheptadine or cyheptine or cylat or Cyllermin or cypraheptidine or cypro h or cyproatin or cyprogin or cyprohaptadine or cyproheptadiene or cyproheptadin or Cyproheptadine or Cyproheptadinum or cyproheptidine or Dihexazin or Dronactin or Eiproheptadine or Glutodina or Periactin or Periactine or Periactinol or Periactinreg or Periatin or Peritol or Peritolreg or Piperidine or Reactin or Viternum).ti,ab,kf.) and (exp Hunger/ or Appetite Stimulants/ or Appetite/ or (appetite or hunger or hungry or satiat* or feeding or body weight or weight gain or intake or calorie* or anorex* or dysorex*).ti,ab,kf. or (weight adj3 (body or increase* or gain* or loss)).ti,ab,kf.)) not (Animal/ not Human/) 2. (Cyproheptadine/ or (adekin or Antergan or antisemin or Apeplus or apeton 4 or Apitup or Axoprol or Biohept or CHEMBL516 or Ciplactin or Cipractine or ciproeptadine or Ciproheptadina or ciproral or ciprotol or Ciprovit or ciprovit or Ciptadine or cryoheptidine or crypoheptadine or cycloheptadine or cyheptine or cylat or Cyllermin or cypraheptidine or cypro h or cyproatin or cyprogin or cyprohaptadine or cyproheptadiene or cyproheptadin or Cyproheptadine or Cyproheptadinum or cyproheptidine or Dihexazin or Dronactin or Eiproheptadine or Glutodina or Periactin or Periactine or Periactinol or Periactinreg or Periatin or Peritol or Peritolreg or Piperidine or Reactin or Viternum).ti,ab,kw.) and (exp Appetite/ or exp Appetite Disorder/ or exp Appetite Stimulant/ or (appetite or hunger or hungry or satiat* or feeding or body weight or weight gain or intake or calorie* or anorex* or dysorex*).ti,ab,kw. or (weight adj3 (body or increase* or gain* or loss)).ti,ab,kw.) 3. limit 2 to animals 4. 2 not 3 5. limit 4 to embase 6. ((Cyproheptadine or adekin or Antergan or antisemin or Apeplus or apeton 4 or Apitup or Axoprol or Biohept or CHEMBL516 or Ciplactin or Cipractine or ciproeptadine or Ciproheptadina or ciproral or ciprotol or Ciprovit or ciprovit or Ciptadine or cryoheptidine or crypoheptadine or cycloheptadine or cyheptine or cylat or Cyllermin or cypraheptidine or cypro h or cyproatin or cyprogin or cyprohaptadine or cyproheptadiene or cyproheptadin or Cyproheptadine or Cyproheptadinum or cyproheptidine or Dihexazin or Dronactin or Eiproheptadine or Glutodina or Periactin or Periactine or Periactinol or Periactinreg or Periatin or Peritol or Peritolreg or Piperidine or Reactin or Viternum) and (appetite or hunger or hungry or satiat* or feeding or boy weight or weight gain or intake or calorie* or anorex* or dysorex* or (weight adj3 (body or increase* or gain* or loss)))).ti,ab,kf. 7. 1 use ppez 8. 5 use emez 9. 6 use cctr 10. or/7-9 11. remove duplicates from 10 12. 11 use ppez 13. 11 use emez 14. 11 use cctr
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sex
Sample size
Setting+
Medication dose
17 M 4F
20 healthy adults, one adolescent
ND
CY 4 mg tid
Study duration 1-4 wks
RCT in study A; single blind in study B; case studies in study C
30.6 (22 – 48)
7F 5M
12 healthy adults
O
CY 4 mg tid
6 wks
Prospective case series
28 (25 – 31)
2M
2 healthy adults, one underweight
Prospective cohort
Stiel (1970)
Saleh (1979)
SC
Najjar (1969)
M AN U
Study design
RI PT
Age (mean yrs,range) 23.7 (13 – 39)
Author(s)
RCT 30.1 8M 14 healthy adults -cross-over study (19 - 48) 6F (mean BMI 22.26) -placebo vs CY -patients were own controls Comer RCT 26.3 4M 7 healthy adults (1997) -cross-over study (21 – 33) 3F (mean BMI 24.4 -placebo vs CY +/-2.7 kg/m2) -patients were own controls Table 1. Cyproheptadine use in Healthy “Normal Weight” Adults
AC C
EP
TE D
Fantino (1990)
HO
CY 4 mg tid
33 & 35 days
HL
CY 4 x 4 mg doses in prior 21 hours
24 hrs
CL
CY 4 mg tid daily; Regular, low- or high-carbohydrate diets
18 days
+ND=not documented;O=outpatient;HO=hospital outpatient;HL=hospital laboratory;CL=community laboratory *appetite measured via self-report
Outcomes Appetite stimulation in 17/20*; mean weight gain 1.2kg in 1 wk (n=20), 2.4kg in 4 wks (n=9) Higher mean weight gain on CY (mean 2.2kg in 2 wks) (P<0.001)and increased reported appetite* Increased weight gain with CY versus placebo (p<0.01), more apparent in underweight subject No effect on hunger/appetite sensation*
Total caloric intake increased by 500 kcal/d when taking CYP as compared to placebo (p<0.007)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Samp le size
Setting^
Medication dose
Study duration
F& M+
20
O
CY 4 mg tid
56 d
16 – 23
27 M 13 F
40
O
CY 4 mg tid
RCT
16, 3-43
F& M+
65
HO
CY 2-8 mg/d
Andronic (1971)
RCT
63 –86
F&M+
30
HI
Pawlowski (1975)
RCT
32, 15-58
F&M+
26
HO
Silverstone (1975)
RCT crossover
21.6, 19-24
13 M 3F
16
Genazzani (2001)
Case Series
Not documente d
F
Silbert (1971)
O
8
CO
SC
RCT
Outcomes
Greater mean percentage weight-gain (CY 3.8 vs Control 1.3 kg) (p<0.05) and mean appetite increase* (p<0.01)
12 wks
Increased weight gain with CY (2.1 kg) versus placebo (0.4 kg) (p<0.05)
3 mos
Significantly greater appetite* and weight gain in CY groups, mean range 1.5 kg (CY 2mg) to 4.3 kg (CY 8 mg) vs placebo (0.2 kg)
CY 4 mg tid
56 d
No statistically significant increase in body weight or appetite ratings**
CY 12 mg/d
3 mos
Weight increase higher in CY group (3 kg) vs placebo (1.3 kg) Increase in appetite higher in CYP group*
CY 4 mg tid
8 wks
CY 4mg/d
120 d
Weight increase higher in CY group (2 kg) vs placebo (0.2 kg) (p<0.001) Increase in appetite higher in CYP group* Higher daily caloric increase in CY group (2905 kcal) vs placebo (2633 kcal) None of the patients resumed menstruation Non-significant increase in BMI was observed No significant changes in the quality of quantity of the food consumed
M AN U
Sardesai (1970)
TE D
RCT
EP
Noble (1969)
Age (Mean, Range in yrs) 28; 18 - 48
AC C
Study design
RI PT
Sex
Author(s)
Table 2. Cyproheptadine use in underweight adults
*Appetite measured via self-report **nurses’ ratings of appetite +details not provided ^O=outpatient;HO=hospital outpatient;HI=hospital inpatient;CO=community outpatient
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sex
Sampl e size
Settin g
Medication dose
Study duration
Benady (1970) Vigersky (1977) Goldberg (1979)
Case report RCT
F
1
CY 4 mg tid
6 months
F& M F
13
HI& HO* HO
8 weeks
41
HI
21, 1336
F
13
HI
CY 12 mg/day CY 12mg/day to 32mg/day CY 32 mg/day
RCT
Not reported
Halmi (1982)
RCT
Halmi (1983)
RCT
21, 1336
F
19
HI
CY 32 mg/day
3 weeks
Halmi (1986)
RCT
20.5, 1336
F
23
HI
CY 32 mg/day
3 months
Unclear
3 weeks
TE D
28.9
Outcomes
RI PT
Age in Years (Mean, Range) 12
Weight gain of 0.68kg/wk for 6 mos after starting treatment with CY. Patient achieved menarche. No difference in weight gain between CY and control groups. Non-significant weight gain in CY group (5.1kg) va placebo (4.3kg). Greatest benefit seen in patients with largest % weight loss at initiation of the study. Significant CY effect on HAM-D^ and on weight gain (increase from 75% of “normal” weight to 98% in CY group). Significant CY effect on weight gain (increase from 76.8% of “normal” weight to 98.8% in CY group) and HAM-D scores, no effect on BDI# scores. CY significantly increased treatment efficiency for restricting subtype patients and significantly impaired treatment efficiency for the binge-purge subtype patients when compared with the amitriptyline- and placebo-treated groups. CY group experienced a significant decrease in the HAM-D ratings.
SC
Study design
M AN U
Author(s)
EP
Table 3. Cyproheptadine use in Adults with Anorexia Nervosa
AC C
*HI=hospital inpatient;HO=hospital outpatient ^= Hamilton Rating Scale
#
=Beck Depression Index
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Study design RCT
Age (mean yrs,range) 43, 15-79
Sex
Tiszai (1972)
Prospective Cohort study
55.2 (16 – 78)
Rahman (1975)
RCT
Irsy (1977)
RCT -cross-over study
Setting
Targeted disease
O*
Irritable colon syndrome
26 F 10 M
36
O
30.5 (16 – 50)
15 M 8F
23
I*
43.3
Group I: 16 F 9M
25
Group II: 3F 7M
10
Group III: 1F 4M 164 M
5
48 F 49 M
Medication dose CY 12 mg/day
Study duration 12 wks
Group A (n=16): mixed diseases++ Group B (n=13): mixed diseases+++ & DM Group C (n=7): mixed diseases+++ and T2DM Chronic pulmonary tuberculosis
CY 5 x 4 mg daily
14 days
CY 4 mg TID
12 -16 wks
Group I: mixed chronic diseases**; Group II: neoplastic diseases*** Group III: controls
CY 4 mg TID - QID
3 – 10 wks
Advanced malignant
CY 8 mg
Variable,
TE D
M AN U
SC
Mainguet (1972)
Sample size 97
RI PT
Author(s)
AC C
EP
I&O
Kardinal
RCT
65
293
O
Outcomes Weight gain significantly higher in CY group at each 4 week interval (p<0.001); at 12 weeks, CY group gained 5.5 kg vs 1.1 kg in placebo. Only patients consuming <1800 cal/d experienced a significant improvement in appetite throughout study.~ Increased average weight gain (2.5 kg) in patient group with mixed diseases+++ (p < 0.01); no effect on average body weight of DM or T2DM patients Increase in mean weight gain versus placebo (4.8 kg vs 1.9 kg) Significant weight gain in CY weeks in placebo-controlled patients (0.7 kg vs 0.2 kg; p values <0.05 to <0.001)+ ^; CY more effective than placebo in 70% of cases. No effect on weight of patients suffering from malignant disease. ^
Mildly enhanced appetites (p =
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RCT
129 F
Not specified
Not specified
cancer++
14
O
HIV
TID
M AN U
SC
Summerbell (1992)
(19 – 86)
RI PT
(1990)
CY 12 mg daily (vs up to 160 mg daily megestrol acetate)
median 36 daysdays 2 mos
0.01)$, but no halt in progressive weight loss (p = 0.78) Increase in mean daily energy intake in both groups compared to pretreatment assessment (increase of 500 kcal/day; p < 0.05); variable effect on weight gain, no difference between CY or megestrol acetate
Table 4. Cyproheptadine use in Adults with mixed disease states
AC C
EP
TE D
*O=outpatients;I=inpatients **examples include psychiatric leanness, dystonia, neurasthenia, duodenal ulcers, gastritis, hepatitis ***examples include Hodgkin Lymphoma, breast cancer, multiple myeloma, colon cancer DM=subclinical diabetes mellitus; T2DM=type2 diabetes mellitus +stats analyzed per week of treatment for 21 (13 in treatment group, 8 in control group) patients of total sample of 40 ++primary tumor sites included were lung, GI, other +++ examples include chronic uticaria, neurasthenia, gastritis, bronchial asthma, depressive neurosis, angina pectoris, chronic enteritis, bronchopneumonia, cardiac insufficiency #dropped to 55 patients by week 16 of the trial ~appetite increase measured via increase in caloric intake ^no data provided on how increase in appetite was measured $appetite increase measured via self-report
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sample size
Setting+
Medication dose
Study duration
Outcomes
26 F 14 M 49 F 49 M 62 F 67 M
40
CO
CY 2 mg tid
3 mos
96
HO
CY 4 mg bid
12 wks
129
HO
CY 8 mg daily
8 yrs
Not provided
36
HO
3 mos
RCT
1-4 yrs
Not provided
70
HO
Canani (1988)
RCT
2-11 yrs
20 F 20 M
40
HO
Mahachoklertwattana (2009) Benjasuwantep (2009)
RCT
2-10 yrs
11 F 10 M
21
HO
CY 2mg tid titrated to 4 mg tid > 2years: CY 10 mL bid; < 2 years: CY 5 mL bid CY 0.4 mg/kg/day divided tid before meals CY 0.1 mg/kg/day hs
Superior weight gain in CY group vs placebo (2.3 kg vs 0.3 kg) Superior weight gain and appetite improvement* in CY treated sample vs placebo group Greater weight gain in CY group vs placebo (5.9% increase vs 3.4% increase, p<0.01); increase in appetite in CY group at week 2 and 4* Greater weight gain in CY group vs vit B treated group (2.1 kg vs 1 kg)
Case Report
3 yrs
1M
1
8 wks
Najib (2014)
RCT
2-5 yrs
25 F 52 M
77
CY 0.25mg/kg/day divided tid CY 0.25 mg/kg/day divided bid 0.25 mg/kg/day divided BID
RCT
3-16 yrs
Penfold (1971)
RCT
Burrows (1981)
HO
HO
Sant’Anna Retrospec 34 +/70 M 127 HO et al. tive 4.8 57 F (2014) Cohort months Table 5. Cyproheptadine use in underweight and/or malnourished children +
CO=community outpatients;HO=hospital outpatients *appetite increase/improvement measured via self-report **measured by weight for age Z-scores
6 wks
SC
1-13 yrs
M AN U
RCT
TE D
RCT
EP
Sanzgiri (1969) Kibel (1969) Juillard (1971)
Age (mean, range) 4-8 yrs
AC C
Study design
RI PT
Sex
Author(s)
8 wks
Greater weight gain in CY group (293% increase in weight vs 155% increase in weight, p<0.0025)
4 wks
Improvement in weight in both groups (absolute change higher in the supplement + CY group); growth higher in the supplement + CY group
4 mos
Greater weight gain (0.7 kg/2mos vs 0.1 kg/2mos), growth (1.7 cm/2 mos vs 0.8 cm/2 mos), appetite* and IGF-1 scores in CY group vs placebo Weight gain (1 kg) noted by 4 weeks
1 mos
6 mos
Higher weight in CY group vs placebo at 1 month (0.6 kg vs 0.1 kg); no difference in weight or height at 2 months Improvement in weight**, mealtime and feeding behaviors; CY well tolerated overall
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Study design RCT
Age(mean Sex yr,range) 1-11 23 M 5F
Sample size 28
Diagnoses
Setting+
CYP dose
Asthma
HO
CY 4 mg qid
Bergen (1964)
RCT
6-13
16
Asthma
HI
CY 4 mg qid Vs placebo
15 wks
Kaplowitz (1986)
RCT cross over study
2–11
6
GH deficiency
Unclear
CY 0.25-0.4 mg/kg/d
16 wks
Muranjan (1994)
Case report
4
F
1
HI&HO
CY starting at 0.5 mg/kg/day
unclear
LermanSagie (1995) Daviss (2004) Homnick (2004) Homnick (2005)
Case report
11
F
1
HI
CY 0.2 mg/kg/day
7 wks
Retrospectiv e cohort RCT
8
21
PO
16
4-8 mg CY nightly 104.7 (mean dose 4.9) ** days CY 4 mg qid 12 wks
Open label, prospective cohort Prospective cohort study
15
18 M 3F 6M 10 F 8 Fe 4M
TB meningitis Anorexia Undernutrition Partial OTC deficiency ADHD and comorbidities^ CF
12
CF
HO
As above
9 mos
40 M 30 F
70
Various forms of Cancer
HI
CY 0.25 mg/kg/day div bid If no response by 4 weeks, changed to megestrol acetate for remaining 4 wks
8 wks
RCT
5-18
HI
CY 4 mg tid
12 wks
Retrospectiv e cohort
4.5 (2-16)
unclear
8 wks
Epifanio (2012) Erdem (2014)
12
9M 5F
25
CF
14
Various forms of Cancer
Study duration 20-28 wks
RI PT
SC
M AN U HO
TE D
Couluris (2008)
17
9M 7F
EP
Lavenstein (1962)
AC C
Author(s)
Outcomes (mean weight gain, appetite) Weight gain: 254% of normal/expected weight gain in CY group vs 120% in chlorpheniramine grp(4mg qid) Appetite increase in CY group* Weight gain: CY group had a 16.4% increase in weight as compared to 4.6% in the placebo control group Appetite* and food intake increase: Moderate to marked increase in CY gr. Weight gain: weight velocity increased from 1.3+/-1.3 to 7.8+/-3.6 kg/y Appetite increase noted in 5/6 patients* Weight gain: 4.4 kg over 12 weeks; 6 kg over 6 months Appetite increase noted* Weight gain: 3.5 kg in 7 weeks Appetite increase noted* Weight gain: 2.2 kg ;mean weight velocity 32.3 g/day Weight gain: 3.45 kg CY vs 1.1 kg Weight gain: Placebo patients gained weight (3.8 kg) in 3-6 months when switched to CY Weight gain: 50 patients (76%) responded to CY, weight gain 2.6 kg (95% CI: 64-85%) Hematologic CA had higher response (21/23 patients) vs nonhematologic CA (29/43) (p=0.04) Weight gain: 0.7 kg vs 1.6 kg BMI: Increased 0.02 kg/m2 vs 0.5 Weight gain: 11 patients (78.5%) had increased weights (1.4 kg) Appetite increase noted in 71% (10 patients)*
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Retrospectiv e cohort
2
23
Silver- Russell syndrome
Table 6. Cyproheptadine use in underweight children with mixed disease states +
CY 0.25 mg/kg/day div bid (max dose 0.4 mg/kg/day)
12 mos
RI PT
Lemoine (2018)
91% of patients responded to treatment with a gain of at least 0.5 SDS of weight during 1 year. Weight gain þ 0.1 SDS/mos of treatment and length/height gain þ 0.05 SDS/mos of treatment
HO=hospital outpatient;HI=hospital inpatient;PO=psychiatry outpatient ADHD=attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (n=21);ODD=oppositional defiant disorder (n=14);CD=conduct disorder (n=2);GAD=generalized anxiety disorder (n=1); PDD=pervasive developmental disorder (n=2); SU=substance use (n=1) *appetite increase measured via self-report or parent report Leukemia (19);Sarcoma (15);Brain tumour (13);Lymphoma (6);Other (16) All patients also taking GH 0.08 U/kg 3 times/wk ** All patients also on stimulant medication -11 on Adderall, 5 on Concerta, 2 on Adderall XR, 2 on dextroamphetamine tablets, 1 on methylphenidate Neuroblastoma (4);Lymphoma (2);Germinoma (3);Other (5)
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
^
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram
RI PT
Records identified through database searching (n = 591)
Additional records identified through other sources (n = 8)
SC
Identification
Study: The use of cyproheptadine as an appetite stimulant: a systematic review
TE D
Records screened (n = 538)
AC C
Included
Records excluded (n = 359)
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 179)
EP
Eligibility
Screening
M AN U
Records after duplicates removed (n = 538)
Full-text articles excluded, with reasons (n = 133) • • • •
Study Design (n=51) Intervention/Exposure (n=26) No mention of primary outcome (n=10) Other (n=46)
Studies included in qualitative synthesis (n = 46)
Note: “Conference Abstract”, “Narrative Review”, “Systematic Review”, “Case Report/Case Series”, “Not an RCT”, “Ineligible study design” were grouped under “Study Design”. “Ineligible population age” and “Ineligible population setting” were grouped under “Population”. “Other” includes “cannot be translated”, “cannot be obtained”, “insufficient reporting of methods and/or results”