Cardiorenal Effects of Newer NSAIDs (Celecoxib) versus Classic NSAIDs (Ibuprofen) in Patients with Arthritis

Correlation between perioperative parecoxib use and postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort analysis

OBJECTIVE

The association of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) is controversial. However, there are few studies focusing on the association between parecoxib and postoperative AKI. Our study aimed at the possible correlation between the intraoperative administration of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors parecoxib and perioperative AKI.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University in Hunan Province, China.

PARTICIPANTS

The electronic medical records and laboratory results were obtained from 9246 adult patients (18-60 years) undergoing non-cardiac surgery performed between 1 January 2012 and 31 August 2017. Study groups were treated with or without parecoxib.

INTERVENTIONS

Univariable analysis identified demographic, preoperative laboratory and intraoperative factors associated with AKI. Logistic stepwise regression was used to calculate the adjusted OR of parecoxib and AKI association.

RESULTS

The incidence of AKI was lower in the parecoxib-administered group (4%) than that in the group without parecoxib (6.3%, p=0.005). In the multivariable regression analysis, postoperative AKI risk reduced by 39% (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87) in the parecoxib-administered group after adjusting for interference factors. Sensitivity analysis showed that postoperative AKI risk reduced in four subgroups: eGRF <90 mL/min·1.73/m² (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.82), non-smoker (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83), blood loss <1000 mL (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83) and non-hypotension (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, parecoxib is associated with a modest reduction of postoperative AKI risk among adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

Overview on the Discovery and Development of Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Should the Focus Be on Synthesis or Degradation of PGE2?

Inflammation is a protective response that develops against tissue injury and infection. Chronic inflammation, on the other hand, is the key player in the pathogenesis of many inflammatory disorders including cancer. The cytokine storm, an inflammatory response flaring out of control, is mostly responsible for the mortality in COVID-19 patients. Anti-inflammatory drugs inhibit cyclooxygenases (COX), which are involved in the biosynthesis of prostaglandins that promote inflammation. The conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with gastric and renal side-effects, as they inhibit both the constitutive COX-1 and the inducible COX-2. The majority of selective COX-2 inhibitors (COXIBs) are without gastric side-effects but are associated with cardiac side-effects on long-term use. The search for anti-inflammatory drugs without side-effects, therefore, has become a dream and ongoing effort of the Pharma companies. As PGE₂ is the key mediator of inflammatory disorders, coming up with a strategy to reduce the levels of PGE₂ alone without affecting other metabolites may form a better choice for the development of next generation anti-inflammatory drugs. In this direction the options being explored are on synthesis of PGE₂-mPGES-1; PGE₂ degradation through a specific PG dehydrogenase, 15-PGDH, and by blocking its activity mediated through a specific PGE receptor, EP4. As leukotrienes formed via the 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) pathway also play an important role in the mediation of inflammation, efforts are also being made to target both COX and LOX pathways. This review focuses on addressing the following three points: 1) How NSAIDs and COXIBs are associated with gastric, renal and cardiac side-effects; 2) Should the focus be on the targets upstream or downstream of PGE₂; and 3) the status of alternative targets being explored for the discovery and development of anti-inflammatory drugs without side-effects.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/8Uufep6ipBQ

Comparative efficacy of traditional non-selective NSAIDs and selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative efficacy of traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data published as of 4 April 2020.

METHODS

We performed meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional non-selective NSAIDs versus cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and RCTs of various cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout. The main outcome measures were mean change in pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and 5-point Likert scale score on days 2-8.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials involving five drugs were evaluated. For pain Likert scale, etoricoxib was comparable to indomethacin (standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.09, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.08) but better than diclofenac 50 mg three times a day (SMD: -0.53, 95% CI: -0.98 to 0.09). Regarding pain VAS score, etoricoxib was comparable to diclofenac 75 mg two times per day (SMD: -1.63, 95% CI: -4.60 to 1.34) and diclofenac 75 mg four times a day (SMD: -1.82, 95% CI: -5.18 to 1.53), while celecoxib was comparable to diclofenac 100 mg four times a day (SMD: -2.41, 95% CI: -5.91 to 1.09). Etoricoxib showed similar patients' global assessment of response (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.07) and swollen joint count (SMD: -0.25, 95% CI: -0.74 to 0.24), but better investigator's global assessment of response (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.11) compared with indomethacin. Etoricoxib showed more favourable pain VAS score than celecoxib (SMD: -2.36, 95% CI: -3.36 to 1.37), but was comparable to meloxicam (SMD: -4.02, 95% CI: -10.28 to 2.24). Etoricoxib showed more favourable pain Likert scale than meloxicam (SMD: -0.56, 95% CI: -1.10 to 0.02). Etoricoxib 120 mg four times a day was more likely to achieve clinical improvement than celecoxib 200 mg two times per day (OR: 4.84, 95% CI: 2.19 to 10.72).

CONCLUSION

Although cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-selective NSAIDs may be equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (especially etoricoxib) may confer a greater benefit.

Celecoxib versus mefenamic acid in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea

Background The objective was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of mefenamic acid and celecoxib in women with primary dysmenorrhea (PD) and to compare the quality of life of study participants pre- and post-treatment. Materials and methods This was a randomized crossover clinical trial conducted among sexually inactive female adults aged 18-25 years with PD. Participants were asked to rate their pain score and answer a validated quality of life questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) before and after consumption of each medication in two menstrual cycles. The effectiveness of celecoxib and mefenamic acid in treating PD was compared with regard to reduction in pain score and the need for medical leave and rescue therapy. Drug tolerability was determined by comparing the occurrence of side effects of both drugs. Quality of life scores pre- and post-intervention were measured and compared. Results Mefenamic acid had a comparable effect to celecoxib in relieving symptoms of PD. Both drugs were equally tolerable and showed similar impacts on quality of life. Conclusions This study demonstrated that mefenamic acid and celecoxib had similar effectiveness in improving pain score and quality of life in women with PD.

Comparison of the adverse renal effects of different types of NSAID based on COX inhibition in patients with headaches

Migraine is a common headache disorder that causes significant disabilities. Non-selective cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors (piroxicam, ketoprofen and ibuprofen) are most widely-prescribed NSAIDs treatment of headaches. Celecoxib is another NSAID therapy that has been approved in the last several years, with different mechanisms of action. The purpose of the study is to follow the renal function and comparisons of nephrotoxicity of different types of NSAID based on COX inhibition, in patients with cefalea-migraine that has been treated for a long period. Besides conventional markers of renal function (serum/urine creatinine determined by Jaffe's methods of enzymatic assay for urea in serum), we used nephelometry by β2 microglobulin (β2M) and photoelectric colorimetry for microalbuminuria in urine, to monitor glomerular and tubular functioning. Any history of kidney diseases was exclusion criteria to enter the study. The results show that the greatest deviations are observed in β2M in terms of its increase in all patients treated with piroxicam and ketoprofen, in 91.7% of the patients treated with ibuprofen, and in 50% of patients treated with celecoxib. The most frequent decrease was shown in creatinine values in urine, in 50% of the patients of piroxicam-treated group, 66.7% of the group treated with ketoprofen and ibuprofen, and 75% of the patients treated with celecoxib. Following the levels of specific biomarkers in urine we can recommend constant monitoring of renal functions during usage of different groups of NSAIDs and be careful while using analgesic-anti-inflammatory drugs. Keywords: adverse renal effects, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, migraine

Repurposing Eukaryotic Kinase Inhibitors as Colistin Adjuvants in Gram-Negative Bacteria

Kinase inhibitors comprise a diverse cohort of chemical scaffolds that are active in multiple biological systems. Currently, thousands of eukaryotic kinase inhibitors are commercially available, have well-characterized targets, and often carry pharmaceutically favorable toxicity profiles. Recently, our group disclosed that derivatives of the natural product meridianin D, a known inhibitor of eukaryotic kinases, modulated behaviors of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Herein, we expand our exploration of kinase inhibitors in Gram-negative bacilli utilizing three commercially available kinase inhibitor libraries and, ultimately, identify two chemical structures that potentiate colistin (polymyxin E) in multiple strains. We report IMD-0354, an inhibitor of IKK-β, as a markedly effective adjuvant in colistin-resistant bacteria and also describe AR-12 (OSU-03012), an inhibitor of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase-1 (PDK-1), as a potentiator in colistin-sensitive strains. This report comprises the first description of the novel cross-reactivity of these molecules.

Effect on Risk of Stroke and Acute Myocardial Infarction of Nonselective Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

There are still debates on the association of increased cardiovascular risk with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) because of inconsistent results. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the transient effects of selective and nonselective NSAIDs on the risk of stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with RA. We conducted a case-crossover study of 5,921 stroke or AMI patients with co-morbidity of RA. All cases were identified from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011, according to the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision and Clinical Modification diagnosis codes from inpatient claims. The index date was defined as the date of hospitalization for stroke or AMI. Exposure to NSAIDs was compared during a case period (1 to 30 days before the index date) with a control period (91 to 120 days before the index date). The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of stroke and AMI were estimated using conditional logistic regression models. Our results showed that overall NSAIDs use increased the risk of stroke by 1.40-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25 to 1.56) and risk of AMI by 1.73-fold (95% CI 1.29 to 2.32). After classifying NSAIDs into selective and nonselective groups, only nonselective NSAIDs use significantly increased the risks of stroke (adjusted OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.55) and AMI (adjusted OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.41), respectively. In conclusion, nonselective NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk of both stroke and AMI in patients with RA.

Increased expression of tight junction protein occludin is associated with the protective effect of mosapride against aspirin-induced gastric injury

Mosapride is known to affect gastric motility, however whether mosapride has anti-ulcergenic effects in gastric mucosal injury is unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of mosapride on aspirin-induced gastric injuries. GES-1 cells were cultured and divided into 5 groups: Control group, aspirin injury group (treated with 18.2 mmol/l aspirin) and mosapride pretreatment groups (treated with 0.4, 0.5, or 0.6 µmol/l mosapride). Cell proliferation was evaluated via MTT assay and cell apoptosis was investigated via flow cytometry. The expression of occludin was determined by western blot analysis. A total of 40 male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into five groups: Control group, aspirin injury group (150 mg/kg) and mosapride pretreatment groups (0.25, 0.50 or 0.75 mg/kg). Gastric mucosal lesions were induced by administering 200 mg/kg aspirin daily for 4 days. Rats in the mosapride groups were pretreated with mosapride 1 h prior to aspirin administration. Histological changes were evaluated under a light microscope and gastric epithelial TJs were observed via transmission electron microscopy. The results revealed that cell apoptosis was significantly increased in the aspirin injury group compared with the control (P<0.05), whereas apoptosis was significantly decreased in the mosapride pretreatment groups compared with the aspirin group (P<0.05). Cell viability was significantly increased in the mosapride pretreatment groups compared with the aspirin injury group (P<0.05), and that of the aspirin injury group was significantly decreased compared with the control group (P<0.05). Compared with the aspirin injury group, occludin expression was significantly increased in the three mosapride pre-treatment groups (all P<0.05). It was also demonstrated that gastric damage was significantly attenuated in the mosapride pretreatment groups compared with the aspirin injury group (P<0.05). Impaired TJ integrity was observed in aspirin injury group, whereas TJs in the mosapride groups were almost intact. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that mosapride exerts a gastroprotective action on aspirin-induced gastric mucosal injury at least in part via attenuating cell apoptosis and increasing occludin expression.

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.

Evaluation of anti-inflammatory activity of selected medicinal plants used in Indian traditional medication system in vitro as well as in vivo

The present study was carried out to evaluate in vivo and in vitro anti-inflammatory potential of selected medicinal plants used in Indian traditional medication. The sequentially extracted plant samples as, Cissus quadrangularis, Plumbago zeylanica, Terminalia bellarica and Terminalia chebula in water, ethanol and hexane were evaluated in-vitro for COX-1 and 2 inhibitory and antioxidant activities. The in vivo anti-inflammatory activity of selected samples showing promising COX-2 inhibition was assessed using carrageenan and Phorbol Myristate Acetate (PMA) induced mice edema animal model. The results obtained reveals that most of the plants were found to inhibit COX-2 activity as compared to COX-1. It was observed that the extracts of T. bellarica (73.34 %) and T. chebula (74.81 %) showed significant COX-2 selective inhibition as compared to other samples. The ethanol extract of the selected plants demonstrated effective DPPH, OH and superoxide radical scavenging activity. In vivo anti-inflammatory study shows that, T. bellarica and T. chebulla had a significant impact on inhibition of edema formation. The cytotoxicity evaluation study of ethanolic fraction of selected medicinal plants indicates that the selected samples have no effect on cell viability. HPTLC fingerprint of flavonoids of the selected samples was also prepared as a measure of quality control. The results obtained may be useful in strengthening the standardization of the selected botanicals. Moreover the selected plants can be considered as a resource for searching novel anti-inflammatory agents possessing COX-2 inhibition.

Effects of captopril on factors affecting gastric mucosal integrity in aspirin-induced gastric lesions in Sprague-Dawley rats

INTRODUCTION

Captopril is an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, which is used as an antihypertensive agent and has shown antioxidant properties. This study aims at determining the effects of captopril on factors affecting gastric mucosal integrity in aspirin-induced gastric lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighteen male Sprague-Dawley (200-250 g) rats that were given aspirin (40 mg/100 g body weight) were divided into three groups: the control, captopril (1 mg/100 g body weight daily) and ranitidine (2.5 mg/100 g body weight twice daily) groups. Ranitidine and captopril were given orally for 28 days. Rats in all groups were sacrificed and the parameters measured.

RESULTS

Captopril reduced gastric acidity, and increased gastric glutathione (GSH) and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) significantly in comparison to the control group. Captopril also reduced malondialdehyde (MDA) and gastric lesions insignificantly compared to the control group. Ranitidine healed the lesions significantly compared to the control group. There was no difference between ranitidine and captopril on the severity of lesions, gastric acidity, MDA and GSH. Captopril increased PGE2 compared to ranitidine (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Captopril has desirable effects on the factors affecting gastric mucosal integrity (acidity, PGE2 and GSH) and is comparable to ranitidine in ulcer healing.

How safe is Celecoxib for Asian-Indian patients with rheumatic diseases?

BACKGROUND

Cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors have been the target of severe criticism, more so following the withdrawal of Rofecoxib. Post-marketing surveillance of Celecoxib in Asian Indians, who are predisposed to premature athero-thrombotic events, has not been studied.

AIMS

To study the adverse effects of Celecoxib and compare them with those of other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in an Asian Indian cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review with convenience sampling of patients on NSAIDs (at least five tablets a week, for at least 3 months prior to the study), attending the Rheumatology clinic of a tertiary care institution in south India between June 2004 and November 2004. Those with pre-existing heart disease, hypertension, thrombo-embolic disease, peptic ulcer and patients on corticosteroids were excluded. All the recorded adverse events were noted and compared between the Celecoxib and non-selective NSAID users. Univariate analysis using Chi-square test was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 1387 patients included, 915 were on Celecoxib. In the NSAID group, 204 had used multiple NSAIDs in sequence. Of the Celecoxib users, 164 had switched over to an NSAID during the study period. New onset of hypertension was significantly higher in the Celecoxib users as compared to non-selective NSAID users (3.06% vs. 1.27%, P = 0.04). However, those who had switched over to NSAIDs did not show this trend. NSAID users, on the other hand, had significant gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (2.54% vs. 0.327%, P = 0.001). A significant number of Celecoxib users who switched over to NSAIDs also developed GI toxicity (6.1% vs. 1.21%, P = 0.018) over a shorter time span, as compared to the continuous NSAID users. Multiple NSAID users had higher adverse events (6.37% vs. 2.23%, P = 0.023) as compared to single NSAID users.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib significantly increased the incidence of new onset hypertension in this cohort of Indian patients with rheumatic diseases. No thromboembolic events were documented.

Celecoxib: a review of its use for symptomatic relief in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Celecoxib (Celebrex®) was the first cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) to be introduced into clinical practice. Coxibs were developed to provide anti-inflammatory/analgesic activity similar to that of nonselective NSAIDs, but without their upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, which is thought to result largely from COX-1 inhibition. Celecoxib is indicated in the EU for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in adults. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in these EU-approved indications, as well as overviewing its pharmacological properties. In randomized controlled trials, celecoxib, at the recommended dosages of 200 or 400 mg/day, was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as or more effective than paracetamol (acetaminophen) and as effective as nonselective NSAIDs and the coxibs etoricoxib and lumiracoxib for the symptomatic treatment of patients with active osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. Celecoxib was generally well tolerated, with mild to moderate upper GI complaints being the most common body system adverse events. In meta-analyses and large safety studies, the incidence of upper GI ulcer complications with recommended dosages of celecoxib was significantly lower than that with nonselective NSAIDs and similar to that with paracetamol and other coxibs. However, concomitant administration of celecoxib with low-dose cardioprotective aspirin often appeared to negate the GI-sparing advantages of celecoxib over NSAIDs. Although one polyp prevention trial noted a dose-related increase in cardiovascular risk with celecoxib 400 and 800 mg/day, other trials have not found any significant difference in cardiovascular risk between celecoxib and placebo or nonselective NSAIDs. Meta-analyses and database-derived analyses are inconsistent regarding cardiovascular risk. At recommended dosages, the risks of increased thrombotic cardiovascular events, or renovascular, hepatic or hypersensitivity reactions with celecoxib would appear to be small and similar to those with NSAIDs. Celecoxib would appear to be a useful option for therapy in patients at high risk for NSAID-induced GI toxicity, or in those responding suboptimally to or intolerant of NSAIDs. To minimize any risk, particularly the cardiovascular risk, celecoxib, like all coxibs and NSAIDs, should be used at the lowest effective dosage for the shortest possible duration after a careful evaluation of the GI, cardiovascular and renal risks of the individual patient.