Celecoxib versus diclofenac in long-term management of rheumatoid arthritis: randomised double-blind comparison

Economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Our cost-of-illness (COI) model adopted the perspective of both payer and society over a time horizon of 5 years to measure the economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Malaysia.

METHODOLOGY

Our COI model utilized a prevalence-based model to estimate the costs and economic consequences of SLE in Malaysia. The clinical parameters were obtained from published literature and validated using the Delphi panel. Direct and indirect medical costs were measured, including disease management, transient events, and indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The number of target Malaysian patients with SLE in the COI model was 18,121. At diagnosis, the numbers of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes were 2,582, 13,897, and 1,642, respectively. The total SLE cost in Malaysia over 5 years from both payer and society perspectives was estimated at MYR 678 million and 2 billion, respectively. The results showed a considerable cost burden due to productivity losses resulting from SLE-related morbidity and mortality. Over a 5-year time horizon, the costs per patient per year from the payer and society perspectives were MYR 7,484 ($4766) and 24,281($15,465), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated the substantial economic burden of SLE in Malaysia over a time horizon of 5 years. It affects adults of working age, in addition to the costs of SLE management and its consequences, such as flares, infection, and organ damage. Our COI model indicated that disease management costs among patients with higher disease severity were higher than those among patients with a mild phenotype. Hence, more attetion should be paid to limiting the progression of SLE and the occurrence of flares, with the need for further economic evaluation of novel treatments that could lead to better outcomes.

The economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Our cost-of-illness (COI) model adopted both payer and societal perspectives over a time horizon of 5 years to measure the economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Taiwan.

METHODOLOGY

A prevalence-based model was established to estimate the economic consequences of SLE after diagnosis in Taiwan. The model included four health states: (i) the three phenotypes representing mild, moderate, and severe SLE, and (ii) death. The inputs were obtained from a literature review of all the clinical trials and validated using a Delphi panel. The Delphi panel's insights included commonly used treatment strategies for patients with SLE within the Taiwanese healthcare system. The costs mentioned in this model are disease management, monitoring, transient event, and indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The number of patients with SLE in our COI model was 20,189. At diagnosis, the number of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes was 5,916, 12,255, and 2019, respectively. The total SLE cost in Taiwan over 5 years from both payer and societal perspectives was estimated at TWD 3.9 and 47 billion, respectively. The costs per patient per year from the payer and societal perspective were TWD 38,775 ($2,758) and TWD 466,119 ($33,152), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrated that the burden of SLE in Taiwan over a time horizon of 5 years is substantially high, mainly due to the consequences of economic loss as it affects women and men during their working age, in addition to the costs of SLE management and its consequences, such as flares, infection, and organ damage. Therefore, more attention should be paid to limiting the progression of SLE and the occurrence of flares, and further economic evaluations are necessary to assess novel treatment strategies that could control the disease.

Ultrasound Nanobubble Coupling Agent for Effective Noninvasive Deep-Layer Drug Delivery

Conventional coupling agents (such as polyvinylpyrrolidone, methylcellulose, and polyurethane) are unable to efficiently transport drugs through the skin's dual barriers (the epidermal cuticle barrier and the basement membrane barrier between the epidermis and dermis) when exposed to ultrasound, hindering deep and noninvasive transdermal drug delivery. In this study, nanobubbles prepared by the double emulsification method and aminated hyaluronic acid are crosslinked with aldehyde-based hyaluronic acid by dynamic covalent bonding through the Schiff base reaction to produce an innovative ultrasound-nanobubble coupling agent. By amplifying the cavitation effect of ultrasound, drugs can be efficiently transferred through the double barrier of the skin and delivered to deep layers. In an in vitro model of isolated porcine skin, this agent achieves an effective penetration depth of 728 µm with the parameters of ultrasound set at 2 W, 650 kHz, and 50% duty cycle for 20 min. Consequently, drugs can be efficiently delivered to deeper layers noninvasively. In summary, this ultrasound nanobubble coupling agent efficiently achieves deep-layer drug delivery by amplifying the ultrasonic cavitation effect and penetrating the double barriers, heralding a new era for noninvasive drug delivery platforms and disease treatment.

All That Glitters Is Not Gold: Assessment of Bee Pollen Supplementation Effects on Gastric Mucosa

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of bee pollen supplementation on the levels of enzymes important for gastric mucosal homeostasis, namely cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), and a biomarker-asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA)-in the gastric mucosa of Wistar rats. The experimental phase divided the rats into four groups: two control groups, sedentary and active, both not supplemented, and two experimental groups, sedentary and active, supplemented with bee pollen. The results indicated that bee pollen supplementation reduced the levels of COX-1 and elevated iNOS levels, while showing no significant impact on COX-2 levels. These findings do not conclusively support the gastroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects of bee pollen on gastric mucosa. However, the supplementation could have resulted in reduced ADMA levels in the physically active supplemented group. Our study does not unequivocally demonstrate the positive effects of bee pollen supplementation on the gastric mucosa, which may be attributed to the specific metabolism and bioavailability of substances within unprocessed, dried bee pollen. Further research should explore the topic of potential therapeutic applications of bee pollen in gastrointestinal health and its interactions with ADMA signaling pathways.

Exploring the therapeutic potential of sodium deoxycholate tailored deformable-emulsomes of etodolac for effective management of arthritis

The current piece of research intends to evaluate the potential of combining etodolac with deformable-emulsomes, a flexible vesicular system, as a promising strategy for the topical therapy of arthritis. The developed carrier system featured nanometric dimensions (102 nm), an improved zeta potential (- 5.05 mV), sustained drug release (31.33%), and enhanced drug deposition (33.13%) of DE-gel vis-à-vis conventional system (10.34% and 14.71%). The amount of permeation of the developed nano formulation across skin layers was demonstrated through CLSM and dermatokinetics studies. The safety profile of deformable-emulsomes has been investigated through in vitro HaCaT cell culture studies and skin compliance studies. The efficacy of the DE-gel formulation was sevenfold higher in case of Xylene induced ear edema model and 2.2-folds in CFA induced arthritis model than that of group treated with conventional gel (p < 0.01). The main technological rationale lies in the use of phospholipid and sodium deoxycholate-based nanoscale flexible lipoidal vesicles, which effectively encapsulate drug molecules within their interiors. This encapsulation enhances the molecular interactions and facilitates the transportation of the drug molecule effectively to the target-site. Hence, these findings offer robust scientific evidence to support additional investigation into the potential utility of flexible vesicular systems as a promising drug delivery alternative for molecules of this nature.

Sirtuin 6 ameliorates arthritis through modulating cyclic AMP-responsive element binding protein/CCN1/cyclooxygenase 2 pathway in osteoblasts

INTRODUCTION

CCN1 is an immediate-early gene product pivotal for arthritis progression. We have previously shown that sirtuin 6 (SIRT6) inhibited hypoxia-induced CCN1 expression in osteoblasts. Herein we examined the contribution of cyclic AMP-responsive element binding protein (CREB)/CRE to this suppressive action and the influence of CCN1 on cyclooxygenase (COX) 2 synthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MC3T3-E1 murine osteoblasts were cultured under normoxia (21% oxygen) or hypoxia (2% oxygen). Expressions of CCN1, phospho-CREB (Ser133), COX2 and relevant kinases were assessed by Western blot. SIRT6 was overexpressed in cultured osteoblasts and arthritic joints by a lentiviral-based technique. Activities of CCN1 gene promoter constructs were examined by luciferase reporter assay. Interaction between CREB and CCN1 promoter was assessed by chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP). Collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) was established in 20 rats to evaluate the effects of SIRT6 therapy on osteoblastic expressions of phospho-CREB, CCN1 and COX2.

RESULTS

SIRT6 suppressed hypoxia-enhanced CCN1 expression and CREB phosphorylation. Attenuation of calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) may be responsible for SIRT6-induced CREB inhibition. CRE at - 286 bp upstream of the ATG start codon was essential for CCN1 expression under hypoxia and SIRT6 reduced hypoxia-stimulated CREB/CRE interaction. Forced expression of CREB rescued SIRT6-suppressed CCN1 synthesis. CCN1 induced COX2 expression in osteoblasts. In rat CIA, the therapeutic effect of SIRT6 was accompanied by decreases in osteoblastic expressions of phospho-CREB, CCN1 and COX2.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that the benefits of SIRT6 to inflammatory arthritis and bone resorption are at least partially derived from its modulation of CREB/CCN1/COX2 pathway in osteoblasts.

Between guidelines and clinical trials: evidence-based advice on the pharmacological management of non-specific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore patients' daily activities and improve their quality of life. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Pharmacological management should be considered as co-adjuvant to non-pharmacological therapy, and should be guided by the symptoms reported by the patients. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from dedicated therapy. This article provides an evidence-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

Lessons from 20 years with COX-2 inhibitors: Importance of dose-response considerations and fair play in comparative trials

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX), which forms prostaglandins involved in pain and inflammation. COX inhibitors have analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, but also increase risks for gastrointestinal ulcers, bleeding, and renal and cardiovascular adverse events. Identification of two isoforms of COX, COX-1 and COX-2, led to the development of selective COX-2 inhibitors, which were launched as having fewer gastrointestinal side effects since gastroprotective prostaglandins produced via COX-1 are spared. The balance between COX-1 mediated prothrombotic thromboxane and COX-2 mediated antithrombotic prostacyclin is important for thrombotic risk. An increased risk of suffering myocardial infarction and death with COX-2 inhibitor treatment is well established from clinical trials and observational research. Rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market for this reason, but the equally COX-2 selective etoricoxib has replaced it in Europe but not in the United States. The "traditional" NSAID diclofenac is as COX-2 selective as celecoxib and increases cardiovascular risk dose dependently. COX inhibitor dosages should be lower in osteoarthritis than in rheumatoid arthritis. Randomized trials comparing COX-2 inhibitors with NSAIDs have exaggerated their gastrointestinal benefits by using maximal NSAID doses regardless of indication, and/or hidden the cardiovascular risk by comparing with COX-2 selective diclofenac instead of low-dose ibuprofen or naproxen. Observational studies show increased cardiovascular risks within weeks of treatment with COX-2 inhibitors and high doses of NSAIDs other than naproxen, which is the safest alternative. COX inhibitors are symptomatic drugs that should be used intermittently at the lowest effective dosage, especially among individuals with an increased cardiovascular risk.

Multimodal Analgesia in the Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: Concepts and Strategies

Postoperative pain management is crucial for aesthetic plastic surgery procedures. Poorly controlled postoperative pain results in negative physiologic effects and can affect length of stay and patient satisfaction. In light of the growing opioid epidemic, plastic surgeons must be keenly familiar with opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia regimens to optimize postoperative pain control.

Methods

A review study based on multimodal analgesia was conducted.

Results

We present an overview of pain management strategies pertaining to aesthetic plastic surgery and offer a multimodal analgesia model for outpatient aesthetic surgery practices.

Conclusion

This review article presents an evidence-based approach to multimodal pain management for aesthetic plastic surgery.

Review article: drug-induced small bowel injury

BACKGROUND

Drug-induced gastrointestinal injury has been increasingly reported, but its exact incidence is not known. The small and large intestines represent the most affected sites of injury, accounting for 20%-40% of all gastrointestinal side effects.

AIM

To provide an updated literature review detailing medications linked to the development of small bowel injury.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on PubMed from its inception to May 1, 2021. We included English-language original studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, review articles and case reports.

RESULTS

Drug-induced enteropathy can range from asymptomatic histological changes resulting in a subtle, self-limited disease to a chronic inflammatory condition mimicking inflammatory bowel disease, or bowel perforation. Endoscopy can demonstrate erythema, mucosal friability, oedema, erosions, ulcers or strictures in severe cases. Histology may include mucosal erosions and ulcerations, focal active enteritis, villous atrophy, epithelial apoptosis or necrotising enteritis. A well-established association has been found with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, immunosuppressants, chemotherapeutic agents, antibiotics, immunotherapies, etanercept and olmesartan. Possible associations have been reported with other biologic agents, medications used for glycemic control, antihypertensives, cholinesterase inhibitors, potassium and iron supplements, with conflicting data regarding contraceptives/hormonal therapy and isotretinoin.

CONCLUSION

Physicians should be aware of the manifestations of drug-induced enteropathy as early recognition can lead to prompt discontinuation of the offending therapy and, therefore, a reduced risk of future complications.

Rheumatologische Erkrankungen und der Gastrointestinaltrakt

Die meisten rheumatologischen Krankheitsbilder können Einfluss auf den Gastrointestinaltrakt haben. Dabei können intestinale Manifestationen (z. B. rheumatoide Vaskulitis, IgG4-assoziierte Pankreatitis, IgG4-assoziierte Cholangitis, Lupus-Enteritis, Polyarteriitis nodosa, Purpura Schoenlein-Henoch, nekrotisierende Vaskulitis), assoziierte intestinale Erkrankungen (chronisch-entzündliche Darmerkrankungen (CED), Zöliakie) und intestinale Komplikationen der rheumatologischen Erkrankung (z. B. Amyloidose, erosive Refluxerkrankung bei Sklerodermie) bzw. ihrer Behandlung (z. B. NSAR-Magenulcus, MTX-Mukositis, Soor-Ösophagitis, intestinale Tuberkulose, ulzerierende HSV-Ösophagitis, CMV-Kolitis) voneinander abgegrenzt werden. Dadurch kommen gastrointestinale Symptome bei Patienten mit rheumatologischen Erkrankungen sehr häufig vor. Die Diagnosestellung (er)fordert Gastroenterologen im interdisziplinären Behandlungsnetzwerk mit Rheumatologen. Insbesondere bei Behandlung von CED ergeben sich für die überschneidenden Zulassungsindikationen der zur Verfügung stehenden Medikamente in der interdisziplinären Absprache zwischen Rheumatologen und Gastroenterologen synergistische Behandlungsoptionen.

Effect of Celecoxib vs Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy on Disease-Free Survival Among Patients With Breast Cancer: The REACT Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Patients with breast cancer remain at risk of relapse after adjuvant therapy. Celecoxib has shown antitumor effects in preclinical models of human breast cancer, but clinical evidence is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of celecoxib as an addition to conventional therapy for women with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative primary breast cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Randomized European Celecoxib Trial (REACT) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study conducted in 160 centers across the UK and Germany testing 2 years of adjuvant celecoxib vs placebo among 2639 patients recruited between January 19, 2007, and November 1, 2012, with follow-up 10 years after treatment completion. Eligible patients had completely resected breast cancer with local and systemic therapy according to local practice. Patients with ERBB2-positive or node-negative and T1, grade 1 tumors were not eligible. Randomization was in a 2:1 ratio between celecoxib or placebo. Statistical analysis was performed from May 5, 2019, to March 5, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received celecoxib, 400 mg, or placebo once daily for 2 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank analysis. Follow-up is complete.

RESULTS

A total of 2639 patients (median age, 55.2 years [range, 26.8-86.0 years]) were recruited; 1763 received celecoxib, and 876 received placebo. Most patients' tumors (1930 [73%]) were estrogen receptor positive or progesterone receptor positive and ERBB2 negative. A total of 1265 patients (48%) had node-positive disease, and 1111 (42%) had grade 3 tumors. At a median follow-up of 74.3 months (interquartile range, 61.4-93.6 years), DFS events had been reported for 487 patients (19%): 18% for those who received celecoxib (n = 323; 5-year DFS rate = 84%) vs 19% for those who received placebo (n = 164; 5-year DFS rate = 83%); the unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.17; log-rank P = .75). Rates of toxic effects were low across both treatment groups, with no evidence of a difference.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, patients showed no evidence of a DFS benefit for 2 years' treatment with celecoxib compared with placebo as adjuvant treatment of ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Longer-term treatment or use of a higher dose of celecoxib may lead to a DFS benefit, but further studies would be required to test this possibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02429427 and isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN48254013.

Clinical Guidelines for Drug-Related Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition

Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcer were previously developed in 2009 with the collaboration of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology. However, the previous guidelines were based mainly upon a review of the relevant literature and expert opinion. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. We organized a guideline Development Committee for drug-related peptic ulcer under the auspices of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017 and developed nine statements, including four for NSAIDs, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through a de novo process founded on evidence-based medicine that included a literature search and a meta-analysis, A consensus was reached through the application of the modified Delphi method. The primary target of these guidelines is adult patients undergoing long-term treatment with NSAIDs, aspirin or other antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the expert consensus and is intended to assist clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcer and associated conditions.

[Clinical Guidelines for Drug-induced Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition]

The Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcers were previously developed under co-work with the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology at 2009. On the other hand, the previous guidelines were based mainly on a literature review and expert opinions. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. In this study, a guideline development committee for drug-induced peptic ulcers was organized under the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017. Nine statements were developed, including four for NSAID, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through de novo processes based on evidence-based medicine, such as a literature search, meta-analysis, and the consensus was established using the modified Delphi method. The primary target of this guideline was adult patients taking long-term NSAIDs, aspirin, or other antiplatelet agent and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the consensus of expert opinions and are intended to assist relevant clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcers and associated conditions.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic lumbar pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Several pharmacological therapies have been proposed for the management of chronic low back pain (LBP), but no consensus has been reached yet.

SOURCE OF DATA

Recent published literatures identified accessing PubMed, Google scholar, Embase and Scopus.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Exploring effective conservative alternatives to the surgical intervention is of especial interest.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic LBP are debated. Several clinical studies showed controversial results, and the most effective and safe class of drugs has not yet been clarified.

GROWING POINTS

The effects of selective and non-selective NSAIDs and gabapentinoids in chronic LBP are probably over-estimated.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The effect of behavioural changes, including exercise, should be explored, alone or in combination with drugs.

Development of Pelubiprofen Tromethamine with Improved Gastrointestinal Safety and Absorption

Pelubiprofen (PEL), which is a commercialized non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), is associated with the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events following long-term exposure and has poor water-soluble properties. Here, a new pelubiprofen tromethamine (PEL-T) with improved solubility, permeability, GI safety, and absorption, compared to PEL, has been developed. The nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) results confirmed that the PEL-T was well formed. The powder of PEL-T showed the presence of additional 6H protons at δ 3.66-3.61 in the ¹H NMR spectrum, and shifted the sharp endothermic peaks at 129 °C in DSC, and the spectrum of distinct absorption peaks in FT-IR. In addition, compared with PEL, PEL-T showed a significantly improved solubility in various media and an increased permeability coefficient (K_p) in Caco-2 cells. Furthermore, compared to PEL oral administration, PEL-T was found to significantly reduce the damaged area in an acute gastric damage rat model. The pharmacokinetic study of the PEL-T powder showed higher maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 h to the last time point (AUC_t) than those of the PEL powder. Taken together, our data suggest that PEL-T is a recommendable candidate with enhanced gastrointestinal safety and better absorption compared with commercial PEL.

Use of corticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of these anti-inflammatories (AI) in the treatment of RA. COCHRANE (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Virtual Health Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) with adults which used AI (dose represented in mg/day) compared with placebo or active controls and was carried out up to December of 2019. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected studies, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. Network meta-analyses were performed using the Stata v.14.2. Twenty-six articles were selected (NSAIDs = 21 and corticoids = 5). Naproxen 1,000 improved physical function, reduced pain and the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Etoricoxib 90 reduced the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Naproxen 750 reduced the number of swollen joints, except for etoricoxib 90. Naproxen 1,000, etoricoxib 90 and diclofenac 150 were better than placebo regarding patient assessment. Assessment physician showed that NSAIDs were better than placebo. Meta-analyses were not performed for prednisolone and prednisone. Naproxen 1,000 was the most effective drug and celecoxib 200 showed fewer adverse events. However, the low quality of the evidence observed for the outcomes with NSAIDs, the absence of meta-analyses to assess the outcomes with corticoids, as well as the risk of bias observed, indicate that future RCT can confirm such findings.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the third edition of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2020 and created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of nine items: epidemiology, hemorrhagic gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcers, non-H. pylori, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers, remnant gastric ulcers, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Therapeutic algorithms for the treatment of peptic ulcers differ based on ulcer complications. In patients with NSAID-induced ulcers, NSAIDs are discontinued and anti-ulcer therapy is administered. If NSAIDs cannot be discontinued, the ulcer is treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Vonoprazan (VPZ) with antibiotics is recommended as the first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication, and PPIs or VPZ with antibiotics is recommended as a second-line therapy. Patients who do not use NSAIDs and are H. pylori negative are considered to have idiopathic peptic ulcers. Algorithms for the prevention of NSAID- and low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related ulcers are presented in this guideline. These algorithms differ based on the concomitant use of LDA or NSAIDs and ulcer history or hemorrhagic ulcer history. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving NSAID therapy, PPIs with or without celecoxib are recommended and the administration of VPZ is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving LDA therapy, PPIs or VPZ are recommended and the administration of a histamine 2-receptor antagonist is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence.

The pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain

INTRODUCTION

Treating chronic low back pain (LBP) can be challenging, and the most effective pharmacological therapy is controversial. The present systematic review investigated the efficacy of various pharmacological compounds to achieve pain relief and improve disability in chronic LBP patients. The present study focused on acetaminophen, amoxicillin, flupirtine, baclofen, tryciclic antidepressants (TCAs), duloxetine, topiramate, gabapentinoids, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids.

AREAS COVERED

All randomized clinical trials comparing two or more drug treatments for chronic low back pain were accessed. Studies reporting outcomes concerning patients with neurologic or mechanic, specific or aspecific low back pain with or without radiculopathy were included. LBP was considered chronic if pain had lasted more than 6 weeks. Data from 47 articles (9007 patients: mean age: 52.62 ± 7.0 years; mean BMI: 28.26 ± 2.8; mean follow-up: 3.23 ± 3.2 months) were obtained.

EXPERT OPINION

According to published level I evidence, only baclofen, duloxetine, NSAIDs, and opiates showed to improve pain and disability levels in patients with LBP. However, the patients' demographics are heterogeneous, and the results must be interpreted with caution and in the light of possible adverse events connected to the use of these drugs.

Celecoxib for the treatment of musculoskeletal arthritis

Introduction: The cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor celecoxib is an approved compound for rheumatoid (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA), combining both anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties with a good gastrointestinal tolerability. Areas covered: This article covers the pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy as well as the latest safety data available for celecoxib with emphasis on the treatment of RA and OA. It is based primarily on a current literature search on PubMed and Web of Science, but also on the professional rheumatological expertise of the authors. Expert opinion: Celecoxib has been shown to be superior to placebo and equivalent to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). Many studies have been published making celecoxib a good and safe treatment option in particular in moderate arthritis and patients without established cardiovascular (CV) disease. Moreover, older patients might gain significant benefits compared to tNSAIDs due to reduced gastrointestinal events even when having a history of ulcer bleedings. Nonetheless, there is still much to learn, especially regarding the prescription of celecoxib in patients with cardiovascular co-morbidities. While low doses seem to be safe according to present data, the knowledge on the more effective, higher doses >400 mg/day is still limited.

Are All Oral COX-2 Selective Inhibitors the Same? A Consideration of Celecoxib, Etoricoxib, and Diclofenac

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used for the treatment of arthritic conditions. Drugs in this heterogeneous class alleviate pain and inflammation by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition has traditionally been associated with increased gastrointestinal (GI) harm, whereas increased COX-2 selectivity has more recently become associated with greater risk of cardiovascular (CV) harm. When the entirety of data is considered, NSAIDs can be seen to exhibit a range of COX isoform selectivity, with all oral NSAIDs appearing to be associated with an increase in CV events. This review focuses on a comparison of the efficacy and the GI and CV safety profiles of three commonly used NSAIDs-celecoxib, etoricoxib, and diclofenac-using direct comparisons where available. While all three treatments are shown to have comparable efficacy, there are differences in their safety profiles. Both celecoxib and etoricoxib are associated with less GI harm than diclofenac despite the similarity of its COX-2 selectivity to celecoxib. Each of the three medicines under consideration is associated with a similar overall risk of CV events (fatal and nonfatal heart attacks and strokes). However, there are consistent differences in effects on blood pressure (BP), reported both from trials using ambulatory techniques and from meta-analyses of randomized trials, reporting investigator determined effects, with etoricoxib being associated with a greater propensity to destabilize BP control than either diclofenac or celecoxib.

Cardiac toxicity of coxibs: mechanisms of development and their prevention

Development of highly selective COX-2 inhibitors – coxibs has proved a decreased risk of gastrointestinal toxicity, which was typical for non-selective NSAIDS, according to the evidence-based medicine. But such situation caused an imbalance in the impact on the synthesis of arachidonic acid metabolites: inhibition of COX-2 vasodilatatory prostacyclins and activation of thromboxane synthesis by platelets, which is accompanied by the increase in the frequency of thrombotic complications – myocardial infarctions and strokes. Some meta-analyses have proved this association: the higher is COX-2 inhibitors selectivity – the higher are CV-risks and cardiovascular toxicity of coxibs. Discontinuation or limitation of indications of coxibs, assessment of risk / benefit ratio is recommended in the conditions of comorbidity of CVS pathology, pain syndromes in rheumatology. Drugs of choice are moderately selective COX-2 inhibitors = meloxicam and nimesulide.

Randomised clinical trial: gastrointestinal events in arthritis patients treated with celecoxib, ibuprofen or naproxen in the PRECISION trial

AIM

To evaluate GI safety of celecoxib compared with 2 nonselective (ns) NSAIDs, as a secondary objective of a large trial examining multiorgan safety.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind controlled trial analysed 24 081 patients. Osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis patients, needing ongoing NSAID treatment, were randomised to receive celecoxib 100-200 mg b.d., ibuprofen 600-800 mg t.d.s. or naproxen 375-500 mg b.d. plus esomeprazole, and low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids if already prescribed. Clinically significant GI events (CSGIE-bleeding, obstruction, perforation events from stomach downwards or symptomatic ulcers) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) were adjudicated blindly.

RESULTS

Mean treatment and follow-up durations were 20.3 and 34.1 months. While on treatment or 30 days after, CSGIE occurred in 0.34%, 0.74% and 0.66% taking celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen. Hazard ratios (HR) were 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) celecoxib vs ibuprofen and 0.51 (0.32-0.81, P = 0.004) vs naproxen. There was also less IDA on celecoxib: HR 0.43 (0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) vs ibuprofen; 0.40 (0.25-0.62, P < 0.0001) vs naproxen. Even taken with low-dose aspirin, fewer CSGIE occurred on celecoxib than ibuprofen (HR 0.52 [0.29-0.94], P = 0.03), and less IDA vs naproxen (0.42 [0.23-0.77, P = 0.005]). Corticosteroid use increased total GI events and CSGIE. H. pylori serological status had no influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthritis patients taking NSAIDs plus esomeprazole have infrequent clinically significant gastrointestinal events. Co-prescribed with esomeprazole, celecoxib has better overall GI safety than ibuprofen or naproxen at these doses, despite treatment with low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids.

The association between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and subsequent rheumatoid arthritis occurrence: a nested case-control study from Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common comorbidity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While GORD has been attributed to the antirheumatic medications, no studies of human cohorts have investigated a link between GORD and RA. This study investigates whether GORD is associated with a subsequent RA diagnosis over a 5-year follow-up using a population-based dataset.

SETTING

Taiwan PARTICIPANTS: We used data from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database. The study group consisted of 13 645 patients with an ambulatory claim showing a GORD diagnosis. We used propensity score matching to select 13 645 comparison patients (one per study patient with GORD).

INTERVENTION

We tracked each patient's claims over a 5-year period to identify those who subsequently received a diagnosis of RA. Cox proportional hazard (PH) regression modelling was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Over 5-year follow-up, RA incidence rate per 1000 person-years was 2.81 among patients with GORD and 0.84 among the comparison group. Cox PH modelling showed that GORD was independently associated with a 2.84-fold increased risk of RA (95% CI 2.09 to 3.85) over 5-year follow-up, after adjusting for the number of ambulatory care visits within the year following the index date (to mitigate surveillance bias).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that GORD might associate with subsequent RA occurrence. Because current treatment guidelines for RA emphasise early diagnosis and prompt treatment, the observed association between GORD and RA may help acquaint clinicians to patients with GORD with higher RA risk and facilitate early diagnosis and treatment.

Development of the Digital Arthritis Index, a Novel Metric to Measure Disease Parameters in a Rat Model of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Despite a broad spectrum of anti-arthritic drugs currently on the market, there is a constant demand to develop improved therapeutic agents. Efficient compound screening and rapid evaluation of treatment efficacy in animal models of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can accelerate the development of clinical candidates. Compound screening by evaluation of disease phenotypes in animal models facilitates preclinical research by enhancing understanding of human pathophysiology; however, there is still a continuous need to improve methods for evaluating disease. Current clinical assessment methods are challenged by the subjective nature of scoring-based methods, time-consuming longitudinal experiments, and the requirement for better functional readouts with relevance to human disease. To address these needs, we developed a low-touch, digital platform for phenotyping preclinical rodent models of disease. As a proof-of-concept, we utilized the rat collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) model of RA and developed the Digital Arthritis Index (DAI), an objective and automated behavioral metric that does not require human-animal interaction during the measurement and calculation of disease parameters. The DAI detected the development of arthritis similar to standard in vivo methods, including ankle joint measurements and arthritis scores, as well as demonstrated a positive correlation to ankle joint histopathology. The DAI also determined responses to multiple standard-of-care (SOC) treatments and nine repurposed compounds predicted by the SMarTR^TM Engine to have varying degrees of impact on RA. The disease profiles generated by the DAI complemented those generated by standard methods. The DAI is a highly reproducible and automated approach that can be used in-conjunction with standard methods for detecting RA disease progression and conducting phenotypic drug screens.

Analysis of risk factors for colonic diverticular bleeding and recurrence

The increase in incidence of colonic diverticular bleeding is relative to an age-related rise in the incidence of colonic diverticulosis and use of antithrombotic medication. However, risk factors related to the onset, recurrence, and prophylaxis have not been established. Therefore, we aimed to determine risk factors for the onset and recurrence of colonic diverticular bleeding.An age- and sex-matched case-control study was performed to assess the risk factors for the onset of colonic diverticular bleeding. The distribution of diverticulosis, comorbidity, and medication were evaluated from medical records. We also assigned patients with a first-time bleeding into groups with and without rebleeding during follow-up to determine risk factors for recurrence.Bilateral colonic diverticulosis, nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), low-dose aspirin (LDA), and anticoagulants were significant risk factors for the onset of colonic diverticular bleeding on multivariate analysis. In contrast, the use of selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor was not a risk factor for the onset. The incidence of bleeding in direct oral anticoagulant and warfarin users was not different between the 2 groups. The cumulative recurrence rate at 1 year was 15%. Recurrence rate was significantly higher in patients with a prior history of colonic diverticular bleeding than those without. Steroid use was associated with recurrence.Extensive distribution of diverticulosis and use of nonselective NSAIDs, LDA, and anticoagulants are regarded as risk factors for the onset of colonic diverticular bleeding. In addition, a prior history of colonic diverticular bleeding is related to the recurrence.

WITHDRAWN: Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated with significant gastro-intestinal toxicity, including a risk of potentially life threatening gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. The NSAIDs known as the selective Cox II inhibitors, of which celecoxib is a member, were developed in order to reduce the GI toxicity, but are more expensive.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in the management of RA by systematic review of available evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to August 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Data was analysed using a fixed effects model. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate continuous outcomes using mean differences and dichotomous outcomes using relative risk ratios. This was not however possible due to the lack of data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs were included (4465 participants); three of the studies also enrolled individuals with OA. The comparators were placebo, naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen. The evidence reviewed suggests that celecoxib controls the symptoms of RA to a similar degree to that of the active comparators examined (naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen). When compared to placebo, the percentage of patients showing improvement according to ACR 20 criteria at week 4 were 42/82 (51%) in the twice daily celecoxib 200mg group and 43/82 (52%) in the twice daily celecoxib 400mg group; these were significantly different from the placebo group in which 25/85 (29%) improved. The six month data reviewed support a reduced rate of UGI complications with celecoxib but there is also evidence to suggest that these benefits may not be evident in the long-term and that celecoxib offers no additional benefit in patients who are also receiving cardio-prophylactic low dose aspirin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.

Oral Versus Topical Diclofenac Sodium in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of joint pain in the United States and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), such as Diclofenac sodium, which is currently available in two main routes of administration; oral and topical distribution have been established as one of the standard treatments for OA. Generally, oral NSAIDs are well tolerated; however our narrative review suggests that the topical solution had a better tolerability property than oral Diclofenac sodium, especially due to side effects of gastrointestinal bleeding with the utilization of the oral format. In addition, the topical route may be considered a reasonable selection by clinicians for management of musculoskeletal pain in those patients with a history of potential risk and adverse side effects. Most studies reviewed comparing oral versus topical solution of Diclofenac sodium revealed comparable efficacy, with minimal side effects utilizing the topical route. The key point of this narrative review is to help clinicians that currently must decide between very inexpensive diclofenac oral presentations and expensive topical presentations especially in the elderly population and the pros and cons of such decision-making process.

Evidence and consensus recommendations for the pharmacological management of pain in India

Despite enormous progress in the field of pain management over the recent years, pain continues to be a highly prevalent medical condition worldwide. In the developing countries, pain is often an undertreated and neglected aspect of treatment. Awareness issues and several misconceptions associated with the use of analgesics, fear of adverse events - particularly with opioids and surgical methods of analgesia - are major factors contributing to suboptimal treatment of pain. Untreated pain, as a consequence, is associated with disability, loss of income, unemployment and considerable mortality; besides contributing majorly to the economic burden on the society and the health care system in general. Available guidelines suggest that a strategic treatment approach may be helpful for physicians in managing pain in real-world settings. The aim of this manuscript is to propose treatment recommendations for the management of different types of pain, based on the available evidence. Evidence search was performed by using MEDLINE (by PubMed) and Cochrane databases. The types of articles included in this review were based on randomized control studies, case-control or cohort studies, prospective and retrospective studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based consensus recommendations. Articles were reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel and recommendations were developed. A stepwise treatment algorithm-based approach based on a careful diagnosis and evaluation of the underlying disease, associated comorbidities and type/duration of pain is proposed to assist general practitioners, physicians and pain specialists in clinical decision making.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation according to absorption differences in three formulations of ibuprofen

OBJECTIVE

Prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) synthesis is modulated by COX2. Changes in PGE₂ could be used to quantify the COX2 inhibition after ibuprofen administration. This study investigated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships for COX2 inhibition according to three formulations of ibuprofen in healthy male subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized, open-label, single-dose, three-treatment, six-sequence crossover study was performed in 36 healthy South Korean male volunteers. Enrolled subjects received the following three 200 mg ibuprofen formulations: ibuprofen arginine, solubilized ibuprofen capsule, and standard ibuprofen. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic blood samples were collected for 16 hours following treatment. For pharmacodynamic evaluations, lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced PGE₂ inhibition at each time point compared to predose was measured. Noncompartmental analysis was used for pharmacokinetic assessment, and time-weighted average inhibition (WAI) of PGE₂ was applied to the pharmacodynamic evaluation.

RESULTS

After a single oral dose of the ibuprofen formulations, the median times to maximum concentration were 0.42, 0.5, and 1.25 hours in ibuprofen arginine, solubilized ibuprofen capsule, and ibuprofen, respectively. The maximum observed plasma concentration was lower in ibuprofen, and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve was comparable among the three formulations. A significant difference was observed between fast-acting formulations and standard ibuprofen tablets for both maximum concentration and time taken to reach it. Individual formulations had an effect on PGE₂ WAI during the 8 hours following treatment, resulting in significantly lower WAI in standard ibuprofen: ibuprofen arginine 18.4%, solubilized ibuprofen capsule 18.4%, and standard ibuprofen 11.6%.

CONCLUSION

Rapid absorption and higher peak concentration were observed in ibuprofen arginine and the solubilized ibuprofen capsule. Additionally, fast-acting formulations had more predominant inhibitory activity on the COX2 enzyme.

Impact of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on cardiovascular risk: Is it the same in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis?

Although large-scale population studies have shown that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of myocardial infarction, this is not confirmed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Herein, we review the litterature on the differential effects of NSAIDs on cardiovascular risk in osteoarthritis (OA) versus RA and discuss possible explanations for this discrepancy. To assess a potential additive effect of age in non-RA populations, we compared weighted mean age between RA patients and unselected NSAID users included in cohort and case-control studies that estimate the cardiovascular risk of NSAIDs, assuming that the main indication for NSAID usage in elderly populations is OA. Our hypothesis that advanced age in osteoarthtitis compared to RA patients confounds the effect of NSAIDs on cardiovasular risk was not confirmed. Several other hypotheses that can be proposed to explain this counterintuitive effect of NSAIDs on the cardiovascular risk of RA patients are discussed. We conclude that patients with RA have a lower cardiovascular disease risk associated with the use of NSAIDs, probably due to the nature of their disease per se, until further research indicates differently.

Simultaneous determination of parecoxib sodium and its active metabolite valdecoxib in rat plasma by UPLC-MS/MS and its application to a pharmacokinetic study after intravenous and intramuscular administration

In this study, we developed and validated a new, rapid, specific and sensitive ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric (UPLC-MS/MS) method to simultaneously determine parecoxib sodium (PX) and its active metabolite, valdecoxib (VX), in rat plasma. Plasma samples were prepared by plasma protein precipitation combined with a liquid-liquid extraction method. The separation was carried out on a Kinetex C18 column (2.1mm×50mm, 2.6μm) with a gradient elution using methanol (A) and a 2mM ammonium acetate aqueous solution (B). The analysis was performed in less than 3min with a flow rate of 0.2mL/min. Ketoprofen was used as an internal standard (IS). Mass spectrometric detection was conducted with a triple quadrupole detector equipped with electrospray ionization in the negative ion mode (ESI(-)) using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). The calibration curves were linear over the concentration ranges of 5-4000ng/mL for PX and 5-2000ng/mL for VX with all correlation coefficients greater than 0.998. The intra- and inter-day relative standard deviations (RSD) for both analytes were within 15% and the accuracy was within 85-115% at all quality control levels. The mean extraction recoveries for all analytes obtained from three concentrations of QC plasma samples were more than 89.0% efficient. Selectivity, matrix effect, dilution integrity and stability were also validated. The method was successfully used to investigate the pharmacokinetics of PX and VX in rat plasma after intravenous and intramuscular administration of PX.

Celecoxib versus diclofenac for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: 12-week randomized study in Norwegian patients

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of two different doses of celecoxib and diclofenac in the treatment of Norwegian patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

Methods

In this 12-week, double-blind, non-inferiority trial patients were randomized to 200 mg once daily (qd) celecoxib, 400 mg qd celecoxib, or 50 mg three times daily (tid) diclofenac. The primary objective compared patients’ assessments of Global Pain Intensity, measured on a visual analogue scale.

Results

A total of 330 patients were randomized (200 mg celecoxib, n = 107; 400 mg celecoxib, n = 108; diclofenac, n = 115). Least squares mean changes in Global Pain Intensity at 12 weeks were −25.8 mm, −30.6 mm and −28.2 mm, respectively. Both celecoxib treatment groups were non-inferior to diclofenac. More patients in the 400 mg celecoxib group met the Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis 20 responder criteria at Week 12 (60.2%) than in the celecoxib 200 mg (51.4%) and the diclofenac 50 mg (57.4%) groups. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity, with dyspepsia and diarrhoea the most commonly reported.

Conclusions

Celecoxib and diclofenac both provided pain reduction, in addition to improvements in disease activity and functional capacity, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

The use of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors for improvement of efficacy of radiotherapy in cancers

Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is overexpressed in cancer cells and is associated with carcinogenesis and maintenance of progressive tumour growth as well as resistance of cancer cells to ionising radiation (IR). COX-2 inhibitors can attenuate tumour growth and expression of markers of cell proliferation as well as induce apoptosis in tumour cells. These agents can have a synergistic effect with IR in the killing of cancer cells. In this review, we discuss the rational basis and molecular mechanisms regarding the usefulness of COX-2 inhibitors in cancer therapy, and also their potential role in increasing the therapeutic index of chemoradiation by protecting normal cells and sensitising tumour cells to radiotherapy.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2014 and has created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of seven items: bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcer, non-H. pylori, non-nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcer, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Ninety clinical questions (CQs) were developed, and a literature search was performed for the CQs using the Medline, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases between 1983 and June 2012. The guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Therapy is initially provided for ulcer complications. Perforation or stenosis is treated with surgery or conservatively. Ulcer bleeding is first treated by endoscopic hemostasis. If it fails, surgery or interventional radiology is chosen. Second, medical therapy is provided. In cases of NSAID-related ulcers, use of NSAIDs is stopped, and anti-ulcer therapy is provided. If NSAID use must continue, the ulcer is treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or prostaglandin analog. In cases with no NSAID use, H. pylori-positive patients receive eradication and anti-ulcer therapy. If first-line eradication therapy fails, second-line therapy is given. In cases of non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers or H. pylori-positive patients with no indication for eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy is provided. The first choice is PPI therapy, and the second choice is histamine 2-receptor antagonist therapy. After initial therapy, maintenance therapy is provided to prevent ulcer relapse.

Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs for Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Cochrane Review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the benefits and harms of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

METHODS

Systematic review using Cochrane Collaboration methodology.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCT (to June 2014), investigating NSAID versus any control for axSpA, and observational studies of longterm effects (≥ 6 mos) of NSAID on radiographic progression or adverse events. Main outcomes were pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index, radiographic progression, number of withdrawals because of adverse events, and number of serious adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCT, 2 quasi-RCT, and 2 cohort studies were included. Twenty-nine RCT and 2 quasi-RCT (n = 4356) were included in pooled analyses [traditional NSAID vs placebo (n = 5), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) vs placebo (n = 3), COX-2 vs traditional NSAID (n = 4), NSAID vs NSAID (n = 24), naproxen vs other NSAID (n = 3), and low- vs high-dose NSAID (n = 5)]. Compared with placebo, both traditional and COX-2 NSAID were consistently more efficacious at 6 weeks and equally safe after 12 weeks. No significant differences in benefits or harms between the 2 NSAID classes and no important differences in benefits or withdrawals because of adverse events between different NSAID were found, especially if studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Single studies suggest NSAID may retard radiographic progression, especially by continuous rather than on-demand NSAID use.

CONCLUSION

High-quality evidence indicates that both traditional and COX-2 NSAID are efficacious for treating axSpA, and harms are not different from placebo in the short term. Various NSAID are equally effective.

Comparison of benefit-risk preferences of patients and physicians regarding cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors using discrete choice experiments

PURPOSE

To elucidate and compare benefit-risk preferences among Korean patients and physicians concerning cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) inhibitor treatments for arthritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects included 100 patients with arthritis and 60 board-certified orthopedic surgeon physicians in South Korea. Through a systematic review of the literature, beneficial attributes of using Cox-2 inhibitors were defined as a decrease in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index for pain score and improvement in physical function. Likewise, risk attributes included upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications and cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. Discrete choice experiments were used to determine preferences for these four attributes among Korean patients and physicians. Relative importance and maximum acceptable risk for improving beneficial attributes were assessed by analyzing the results of the discrete choice experiment by using a conditional logit model.

RESULTS

Patients ranked the relative importance of benefit-risk attributes as follows: pain reduction (35.2%); physical function improvement (30.0%); fewer CV adverse events (21.5%); fewer GI complications (13.4%). The physicians' ranking for the same attributes was as follows: fewer CV (33.5%); pain reduction (32.4%); fewer GI complications (18.1%); physical function improvement (16.0%). Patients were more willing than physicians to accept risks when pain improved from 20% or 45% to 55% and physical function improved from 15% or 35% to 45%.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that patients and physicians had different benefit-risk preferences regarding Cox-2 inhibitors. Patients with arthritis prioritized the benefits of Cox-2 inhibitors over the risks; moreover, in comparison with the physicians, arthritis patients were more willing to accept the trade-off between benefits and risks to achieve the best treatment level. To reduce the preference gap and achieve treatment goals, physicians must better understand their patients' preferences.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Relatively Selective COX-2 Inhibitors Versus Coxibs for the Prevention of NSAID-Induced Gastrointestinal Injury

Currently 2 difference classes of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, coxibs and relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors, are available for patients requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy; their gastroprotective effect is hardly directly compared. The aim of this study was to compare the gastroprotective effect of relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors with coxibs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to March 2015) were searched for potential eligible studies. We included randomized controlled trials comparing coxibs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, parecoxib, and lumiracoxib), relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors (nabumetone, meloxicam, and etodolac), and nonselective NSAIDs with a study duration ≥ 4 weeks. Comparative effectiveness and safety data were pooled by Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were ulcer complications and symptomatic ulcer. Summary effect-size was calculated as risk ratio (RR), together with the 95% confidence interval (CI). This study included 36 trials with a total of 112,351 participants. Network meta-analyses indicated no significant difference between relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs regarding ulcer complications (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.47-3.27), symptomatic ulcer (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.09-3.92), and endoscopic ulcer (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.37-2.96). Network meta-analyses adjusting potential influential factors (age, sex, previous ulcer disease, and follow-up time), and sensitivity analyses did not reveal any major change to the main results. Network meta-analyses suggested that relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs were associated with comparable incidences of total adverse events (AEs) (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93-1.31), gastrointestinal AEs (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.25), total withdrawals (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.74-1.33), and gastrointestinal AE-related withdrawals (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.57-1.74). Relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors appear to be associated with similar gastroprotective effect and tolerability as coxibs. Owing to the indirectness of the comparisons, future research is required to confirm the study conclusion.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for axial spondyloarthritis (ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis)

BACKGROUND

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) comprises ankylosing spondylitis (radiographic axSpA) and non-radiographic (nr-)axSpA and is associated with psoriasis, uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as first-line drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of NSAIDs in axSpA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE to 18 June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in adults with axSpA and observational cohort studies studying the long term effect (≥ six months) of NSAIDs on radiographic progression or adverse events (AEs). The main comparions were traditional or COX-2 NSAIDs versus placebo. The major outcomes were pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), radiographic progression, number of withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies (35 RCTs, two quasi-RCTs and two cohort studies); and 29 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs (n = 4356) in quantitative analyses for the comparisons: traditional NSAIDs versus placebo, cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) versus placebo, COX-2 versus traditional NSAIDs, NSAIDs versus NSAIDs, naproxen versus other NSAIDs, low versus high dose. Most trials were at unclear risk of selection bias (n = 29), although blinding of participants and personnel was adequate in 24 trials. Twenty-five trials had low risk of attrition bias and 29 trials had low risk of reporting bias. Risk of bias in both cohort studies was high for study participation, and low or unclear for all other criteria. No trials in the meta-analyses assessed patients with nr-axSpA.Traditional NSAIDs were more beneficial than placebo at six weeks. High quality evidence (four trials, N=850) indicates better pain relief with NSAIDs (pain in control group ranged from 57 to 64 on a 100mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and was 16.5 points lower in the NSAID group (95% confidence interval (CI) -20.8 to -12.2), lower scores indicate less pain, NNT 4 (3 to 6)); moderate quality evidence (one trial, n = 190) indicates improved disease activity with NSAIDs (BASDAI in control group was 54.7 on a 100-point scale and was 17.5 points lower in the NSAID group, 95% CI -23.1 to -11.8), lower scores indicate less disease activity, NNT 3 (2 to 4)); and high quality evidence (two trials, n = 356) indicates improved function with NSAIDs (BASFI in control group was 50.0 on a 100-point scale and was 9.1 points lower in the NSAID group (95% CI -13.0 to -5.1), lower scores indicate better functioning, NNT 5 (3 to 8)). High (five trials, n = 1165) and moderate (three trials, n = 671) quality evidence (downgraded due to potential imprecision) indicates that withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs did not differ significantly between placebo (52/1000 and 2/1000) and NSAID (39/1000 and 3/1000) groups after 12 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; and RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 7.97, respectively). BASMI and radiographic progression were not reported.COX-2 NSAIDS were also more efficacious than placebo at six weeks. High quality evidence (two trials, n = 349) indicates better pain relief with COX-2 (pain in control group was 64 points and was 21.7 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -35.9 to -7.4), NNT 3 (2 to 24)); moderate quality evidence (one trial, n = 193) indicates improved disease activity with COX-2 (BASDAI in control groups was 54.7 points and was 22 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -27.4 to -16.6), NNT 2 (1 to 3)); and high quality evidence (two trials, n = 349) showed improved function with COX-2 (BASFI in control group was 50.0 points and was 13.4 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -17.4 to -9.5), NNT 3 (2 to 4)). Low and moderate quality evidence (three trials, n = 669) (downgraded due to potential imprecision and heterogeneity) indicates that withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs did not differ significantly between placebo (11/1000 and 2/1000) and COX-2 (24/1000 and 2/1000) groups after 12 weeks (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.36 to 12.56; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.21, respectively). BASMI and radiographic progression were not reported.There were no significant differences in benefits (pain on VAS: MD -2.62, 95% CI -10.99 to 5.75; three trials, n = 669) or harms (withdrawals due to AEs: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.82; four trials, n = 995) between NSAID classes. While indomethacin use resulted in significantly more AEs (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; 11 studies, n = 1135), and neurological AEs (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.14; nine trials, n = 963) than other NSAIDs, these findings were not robust to sensitivity analyses. We found no important differences in harms between naproxen and other NSAIDs (three trials, n = 646), although other NSAIDs appeared more effective for relieving pain (MD 6.80, 95% CI 3.72 to 9.88; two trials, n = 232). We found no clear dose-response effect on benefits or harms (five studies, n = 1136). Single studies suggest NSAIDs may be effective in retarding radiographic progression, especially in certain subgroups of patients, e.g. patients with high CRP, and that this may be best achieved by continuous rather than on-demand use of NSAIDs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High to moderate quality evidence indicates that both traditional and COX-2 NSAIDs are efficacious for treating axSpA, and moderate to low quality evidence indicates harms may not differ from placebo in the short term. Various NSAIDs are equally effective. Continuous NSAID use may reduce radiographic spinal progression, but this requires confirmation.

Loxoprofen sodium and celecoxib for postoperative pain in patients after spinal surgery: a randomized comparative study

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used to treat inflammation, pain, and fever, but no criterion standard exists for the management of postoperative pain following spinal surgery. In the present study, we compared the analgesic efficacy of loxoprofen sodium (loxoprofen) and celecoxib for the management of postoperative pain following spinal surgery.

METHODS

One-hundred forty-one patients (mean age 62.2 years) were randomly assigned to two groups before spinal surgery: a loxoprofen group (n = 73, 180 mg/day) and a celecoxib group (n = 68, 200 mg/day). The drugs were administered from 1 day until 7 days after surgery. A numeric rating scale (NRS) was used to evaluate pain at nine predefined times every day and the findings were compared between the two groups. Laboratory data and adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the maximum and mean NRS scores on each day between loxoprofen and celecoxib, suggesting a comparable analgesic effect for these two NSAIDs. Greater improvement in the NRS score between preadministration (baseline) and 30 min or 2 h after administration was obtained for loxoprofen. This tendency was shown for both slight (NRS score <5 at baseline) and severe pain (NRS score ≥ 5 at baseline). Loxoprofen was discontinued in one patient on day 4 because of renal dysfunction. Celecoxib was discontinued in one patient on day 2 at the patient's request.

CONCLUSIONS

Both loxoprofen sodium and celecoxib were well tolerated for the relief of acute postoperative pain after spinal surgery. A single administration of loxoprofen showed superior and rapid effectiveness compared with celecoxib for both slight and severe postoperative pain.

Safe prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis--an expert consensus addressing benefits as well as gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks

BACKGROUND

There are several guidelines addressing the issues around the use of NSAIDs. However, none has specifically addressed the upper versus lower gastrointestinal (GI) risk of COX-2 selective and non-selective compounds nor the interaction at both the GI and cardiovascular (CV) level of either class of drugs with low-dose aspirin. This Consensus paper aims to develop statements and guidance devoted to these specific issues through a review of current evidence by a multidisciplinary group of experts.

METHODS

A modified Delphi consensus process was adopted to determine the level of agreement with each statement and to determine the level of agreement with the strength of evidence to be assigned to the statement.

RESULTS

For patients with both low GI and CV risks, any non-selective NSAID (ns-NSAID) alone may be acceptable. For those with low GI and high CV risk, naproxen may be preferred because of its potential lower CV risk compared with other ns-NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors, but celecoxib at the lowest approved dose (200 mg once daily) may be acceptable. In patients with high GI risk, if CV risk is low, a COX-2 selective inhibitor alone or ns-NSAID with a proton pump inhibitor appears to offer similar protection from upper GI events. However, only celecoxib will reduce mucosal harm throughout the entire GI tract. When both GI and CV risks are high, the optimal strategy is to avoid NSAID therapy, if at all possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Time is now ripe for offering patients with osteoarthritis the safest and most cost-effective therapeutic option, thus preventing serious adverse events which could have important quality of life and resource use implications. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0291-x.

Amelioration of small bowel injury by switching from nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a pilot study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but have several side effects including mucosal damage in the small intestine. We aimed to evaluate whether the small bowel injury is ameliorated by switching from nonselective NSAIDs to celecoxib in patients with RA.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with RA who were treated with nonselective NSAIDs were enrolled in this study. Nonselective NSAIDs were converted to celecoxib for 12 weeks. Capsule endoscopy was performed before and after treatment with celecoxib. Videos were screened by gastroenterologists blinded to the patients' treatment.

RESULTS

Before the administration of celecoxib, reddened folds, denuded areas, petechiae/red spots and mucosal breaks were observed in 63, 63, 88 and 69% of the patients, respectively. In the 14 patients who completed this study, conversion to celecoxib significantly reduced the number of petechiae/red spots, the number of mucosal breaks, and Lewis scores. RA activity and cytokine levels in the peripheral blood were not significantly different before and after treatment with celecoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of small bowel injury by nonselective NSAIDs is high in patients with RA. Conversion from nonselective NSAIDs to celecoxib can be useful for protecting patients with RA from small bowel injury.