Prostanoids in Cardiac and Vascular Remodeling.

Prostanoids are biologically active lipids generated from arachidonic acid by the action of the COX (cyclooxygenase) isozymes. NSAIDs, which reduce the biosynthesis of prostanoids by inhibiting COX activity, are effective anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic drugs. However, their use is limited by cardiovascular adverse effects, including myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension, and heart failure. While it is well established that NSAIDs increase the risk of atherothrombotic events and hypertension by suppressing vasoprotective prostanoids, less is known about the link between NSAIDs and heart failure risk. Current evidence indicates that NSAIDs may increase the risk for heart failure by promoting adverse myocardial and vascular remodeling. Indeed, prostanoids play an important role in modulating structural and functional changes occurring in the myocardium and in the vasculature in response to physiological and pathological stimuli. This review will summarize current knowledge of the role of the different prostanoids in myocardial and vascular remodeling and explore how maladaptive remodeling can be counteracted by targeting specific prostanoids.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of pulmonary embolism in patients with inflammatory joint disease-results from the nationwide Norwegian Cardio-rheuma registry.

AIMS: Patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD), including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have increased rates of pulmonary embolism (PE). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use is associated with PE in the general population. Our aim was to evaluate the association between NSAIDs use and PE in IJD patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using individual-level registry data from the whole Norwegian population, including data from the Norwegian Patient Registry and the Norwegian Prescription Database, we: (1) evaluated PE risk in IJD compared to non-IJD individuals, (2) applied the self-controlled case series method to evaluate if PE risks were associated with use of traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) and selective cox-2 inhibitors (coxibs). After a one-year wash-out period, we followed 4 660 475 adults, including 74 001 with IJD (RA: 39 050, PsA: 20 803, and axSpA: 18 591) for a median of 9.0 years. Crude PE incidence rates per 1000 patient years were 2.02 in IJD and 1.01 in non-IJD individuals. Age and sex adjusted hazard ratios for PE events were 1.57 for IJD patients compared to non-IJD. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for PE during tNSAIDs use were 0.78 (0.64-0.94, P = 0.010) in IJD and 1.68 (1.61-1.76, P < 0.001) in non-IJD. IRR (95% CI) for PE during coxibs use was 1.75 (1.10-2.79, P = 0.018) in IJD and 2.80 (2.47-3.18, P < 0.001) for non-IJD. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary embolism rates appeared to be higher in IJD than among non-IJD subjects in our study. Traditional NSAIDs may protect against PE in IJD patients, while coxibs may associated with increased PE risk.

Inhibition of endogenous nitric oxide activity impairs the colonic sparing effect of rofecoxib, the cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor and resveratrol, the preferential cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitor in the course of experimental colitis. Role of oxidative stress biomarkers and proinflammatory cytokines.

The gut mucosal barrier plays a key role in the physiology of gastrointestinal (GI) tract, preventing under homeostatic conditions, the epithelial cells of the gastric mucosa from hydrochloric acid and intestinal mucosa from alkaline secretion, food toxins and pathogenic microbiota. Previous studies have documented that blockade of both isoforms of cyclooxygenase (COX): constitutive (COX-1) and inducible (COX-2), as well NO synthase in the stomach exacerbated the gastric damage induced by various ulcerogens, however, such as effects of non-selective and selective inhibition of COX-1, COX-2 and NOS enzymes on colonic damage have been little studied. The supplementation of NO by intragastric (i.g.) treatment with NO-releasing compound NO-aspirin (NO-ASA) or substrate for NO synthase L-arginine ameliorated the damage of upper GI-tract, but whether similar effect can be observed in colonic mucosa associated with the experimental colitis, and if above mentioned compounds can be effective in aggravation or protection of experimental colitis remains less recognized. In this study rats with experimental colitis induced by intrarectal administration of 2,4,6-trinitrobenzosulphonic acid (TNBS) were daily treated for 7 days with: 1) vehicle (i.g.), 2) ASA 40 mg/kg (i.g.), 3) rofecoxib 10 mg/kg (i.g.), 4) resveratrol 10 mg/kg (i.g.), 5) NO-ASA 40 mg/kg (i.g.), 6) L-arginine 200 mg/kg (i.g.) with or without of L-NNA 20 mg/kg (i.p.). The macroscopic and microscopic area of colonic damage was determined planimetrically, the colonic blood flow (CBF) was assessed by Laser flowmetry, and the oxidative stress biomarkers malondialdehyde and 4-hydroxynonenal (MDA+4-HNE), the antioxidative factors superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione (GSH), as well as proinflammatory cytokines in the colonic mucosa (tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-1beta (IL-1ß)) were measured. We have documented that administration of TNBS produced gross and microscopic colonic damage and significantly decreased CBF (p<0.05). Treatment with ASA significantly increased the area of colonic damage (p<0.05), an effect accompanied by a significant decrease in the CBF, the significant increment of MDA+4-HNE, and the attenuation of the antioxidative properties in colonic mucosa, documented by a significant decrease of SOD activity and GSH concentration, and elevation of the colonic tissue levels of TNF-α and IL-1ß comparing to control Veh-treated TNBS rats. Administration of rofecoxib or resveratrol also significantly increased the colonic damage and significantly decreased the CBF, causing an increase in MDA+4-HNE and mucosal content of TNF-α and IL-1α and a significant decrease of the SOD activity and GSH content (p<0.05), however, these changes were significantly less pronounced as compared with ASA. On the contrary, the treatment with NO-ASA, or L-arginine, significantly diminished the area of colonic lesions, the MDA+4-HNE concentration, attenuated the TNF-α and IL-1ß levels, while increasing the CBF, SOD activity and GSH content (p<0.05). The concomitant treatment of L-NNA with rofecoxib or resveratrol reversed an increase in area of colonic damage and accompanying changes in CBF, colonic mucosa TNF-α and IL-1ß levels, the MDA+4-HNE concentration, and SOD activity and GSH content comparing to those observed in TNBS rats treated with these COX-inhibitors alone (p<0.05). In contrast, co-treatment with L-NNA and NO-ASA or L-arginine failed to significantly affect the decrease of colonic lesions accompanied by the rise in CBF, the attenuation of MDA+4-HNE concentration, TNF-α and IL-1ß levels, SOD activity and GSH content exerted by NO-ASA- or L-arginine treatment of the respective control TNBS-rats without L-NNA administration. These observations suggest that 1) the increase of NO availability either from NO-releasing donors such as NO-ASA or NO precursors such as L-arginine, can inhibit the inflammatory and microvasculature alterations, as well as increase in lipid peroxidation due to the enhanced efficacy of these compounds to increase the antioxidative properties of colonic mucosa, 2) unlike ASA which exacerbated the severity of colitis, the treatment with rofecoxib, the specific 'safer' COX-2 inhibitor or resveratrol, the polyphenolic compound known to act as the dual COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitor, can attenuate the colonic damage during course of TNBS colitis possibly via anti-inflammatory and antioxidative properties, and 3) the blockade of endogenous NO activity by L-NNA which also exacerbated the severity of mucosal damage in colitis, can abolish the sparing effect of rofecoxib and resveratrol indicating the NO bioavailability plays an important role in enhanced efficacy of both specific and dual COX inhibitors to ameliorate the experimental colitis.

Dual-target inhibitors based on COX-2: a review from medicinal chemistry perspectives.

Inhibitors of COX-2 constitute a class of anti-inflammatory analgesics, showing potential against certain types of cancer. However, such inhibitors are associated with cardiovascular toxicity. Moreover, although single-target molecules possess specificity for particular targets, they often lead to poor safety, low efficacy and drug resistance due to compensatory mechanisms. A new generation of dual-target drugs that simultaneously inhibit COX-2 and another target is showing strong potential to treat cancer or reduce adverse cardiac effects. The present perspective focuses on the structure and functions of COX-2, and its role as a therapeutic target. It also explores the current state and future possibilities for dual-target strategies from a medicinal chemistry perspective.

Pyridazine derivatives as selective COX-2 inhibitors: A review on recent updates.

Selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors have several advantages over nonselective COX inhibitors (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), including the absence of adverse effects (renal and hepatic disorders) associated with the long-term use of standard NSAIDs, as well as an improved gastrointestinal profile. The pyridazine nucleus is regarded as a promising scaffold for the development of powerful COX-2 inhibitors, particularly when selectively functionalized. This article summarizes some methods for the synthesis of pyridazine derivatives. Furthermore, it covers all of the pyridazine derivatives that have appeared as selective COX-2 inhibitors, making it useful as a reference for the rational design of novel selective COX-2 inhibitors.

Selective COX-2 inhibitors do not increase gastrointestinal reactions after colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of selective COX-2 inhibitors in preventing colorectal cancer recurrence has been demonstrated, however it is unknown how safe and successful they will be over the long term. As a result, we looked at the efficacy, safety, and consequences of adding COX-2 inhibitors to the treatment plan afterward. METHODS: In patients with advanced colorectal cancer, we compared the efficacy of celecoxib at two different doses (200 mg twice day and 400 mg twice daily) with placebo. To evaluate the impacts of post-treatment, several datasets from inception to June 2022 were searched. Response rate, illness control rate, and 3-year survival were the main results. And evaluated several safety outcomes, particularly those that were susceptible to adverse events. RESULTS: The study comprised a total of 9 randomized controlled trials (3206 participants). Celecoxib and rofecoxib doidn't significantly improved the 1-3 year remission rate (OR, 1.57 [95% CI: 0.95-2.57]) and disease control rate (OR, 1.08 [95% CI: 0.99-1.17]). Subgroup analysis of different doses showed that 400 mg of celecoxib significantly improved the response rate (OR, 2.82 [95%CI: 1.20-6.61]). 200 mg celecoxib was not significant (OR, 1.28 [95% CI: 0.66-2.49]). Rofecoxib also did not fully improve disease response rates. Celecoxib at any dose improved 3-year survival (OR, 1.21 [95% CI: 1.02-1.45]). It is important to note that COX-2 inhibitors did not significantly enhance the likelihood of adverse events including gastrointestinal or cardiovascular side effects at any dose. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with advanced colorectal cancer, a reasonable chemoprevention regimen can include celecoxib 400 mg twice daily.

Postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of imrecoxib versus celecoxib in hip osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: a multi-center, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Imrecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, possesses a certain postoperative analgesic effect for several orthopedic surgeries. This multi-center, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study intended to investigate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety profile of imrecoxib (versus celecoxib) in hip osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: 156 hip osteoarthritis patients planned for THA were randomized into imrecoxib (N = 78) and celecoxib (N = 78) groups. Patients were orally administrated with imrecoxib or celecoxib 200 mg at 2 h (h) after THA, 200 mg every 12 h to day (D)3, and 200 mg every 24 h to D7; additionally, each patient received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for 2 days. RESULTS: Resting pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 6 h, 12 h, D1, D2, D3, and D7 post THA was not varied between imrecoxib and celecoxib groups (all P > 0.050), neither was moving pain VAS score (all P > 0.050). Importantly, the upper of 95% confidence interval of pain VAS score margin between imrecoxib and celecoxib groups was within the non-inferiority threshold (Δ = 1.0), indicating the fact that non-inferiority was established. The additional and total consumption of PCA was not varied between imrecoxib and celecoxib groups (both P > 0.050). Also, no difference was seen in Harris hip score, European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) total and VAS scores at month (M)1, M3 between the two groups (all P > 0.050). Besides, the incidences of all adverse events were not different between imrecoxib and celecoxib groups (all P > 0.050). CONCLUSION: Imrecoxib is non-inferior to celecoxib for postoperative analgesia in hip osteoarthritis patients undergoing THA.

[Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor hypersensitivity]. / Hipersensibilidad selectiva a inhibidores de la ciclooxigenasa-2.

BACKGROUND: The cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are usually recommended as a safe alternative in patients with multiple hypersensitivity to non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Nevertheless, both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions have been described, and the possibility of cross-reactivity with sulphonamides. CASE REPORT: A 66-year-old patient who, after taking a celecoxib tablet, presented with latency of several hours a skin reaction. Previously, he had presented a minor reaction during treatment with etoricoxib without establishing the correlation at that time. The patient underwent an allergological study by means of skin tests with negative results and an oral challenged test with etoricoxib with positive results. Tolerance to sulfonamides was proven. CONCLUSIONS: We present a singular case of a cross-reactivity skin reaction to etoricoxib and celecoxib, suggesting the need to perform challenge tests to confirm the tolerance or not of each drug before allowing their use. On the contrary, trimethropim/sulfamethoxazole could be safely used in our patients, if needed.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Los inhibidores de la ciclooxigenasa-2 suelen indicarse en pacientes con hipersensibilidad múltiple a los antiinflamatorios no esteroides. Sin embargo, se han descrito reacciones de hipersensibilidad inmediata y retardada, además de posible reactividad cruzada con sulfonamidas. REPORTE DE CASO: Paciente masculino de 66 años, que acudió al servicio de Alergia por una reacción cutánea, luego de haber consumido un comprimido de celecoxib. Previamente, durante el tratamiento con etoricoxib, tuvo una reacción menor, sin establecer la correlación farmacológica. Se realizaron pruebas cutáneas (intraepidérmicas y epicutáneas), con resultados negativos, y un examen de exposición oral controlada con etoricoxib, con resultado positivo. Se comprobó la tolerancia a las sulfamidas. CONCLUSIONES: El caso de reacción cutánea, mediante reactividad cruzada, entre etoricoxib y celecoxib expuesto en este artículo sugiere la necesidad de realizar pruebas de provocación para confirmar la tolerancia de cada fármaco antes de su prescripción. Por el contrario, trimetropim-sulfametoxazol pueden indicarse con seguridad, si fuese necesario.

Secondary cough headache: Independent course of headache and response to a COX-2 inhibitor.

We report on two patients with secondary cough headache who responded to the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor etoricoxib and showed an independent temporal course. This case report shows that secondary cough headache can also respond to medical treatment and can respond to a COX-2 inhibitor, not previously reported. As is seen in primary cough headache, the headache disorder can go into natural remission (case 1) while the secondary pathology progresses and conversely, persist once the secondary pathology has resolved (case 2). The course of the headache and that of the secondary pathology do not necessarily correlate. It is, therefore, proposed that any treatment of the secondary pathology is independent to that of the headache. In NSAID-intolerant cases a COX-2 inhibitor can be trialled first line.

Jitteriness/anxiety syndrome caused by coadministration of celecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, with escitalopram and trazodone in a patient with depression and spondylolisthesis.

Antidepressant-induced jitteriness/anxiety syndrome is characterized as anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, and (hypo)mania, which appear immediately after initiation or increased dosage of an antidepressant. This report describes a case of the jitteriness/anxiety syndrome caused by the coadministration of celecoxib with escitalopram and trazodone in a patient with depression and spondylolisthesis. The depression of a patient, a woman in her 60 s, had been in remission at least for 5 years under treatment using escitalopram and trazodone. Immediately after coadministration of celecoxib because of her buttock and limb pain, she showed anxiety, agitation, akathisia, insomnia, irritability, aggressiveness, impulsivity, and hypomania. These symptoms disappeared after the discontinuation of celecoxib. The present case suggests that coadministration of celecoxib with escitalopram and trazodone can cause the jitteriness/anxiety syndrome, presumably via a pharmacokinetic interaction of celecoxib with these antidepressants and/or the effects of celecoxib on serotonergic neurotransmission.

Disconnect between COX-2 selective inhibition and cardiovascular risk in preclinical models.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary pharmacology profiling is routinely applied in pharmaceutical drug discovery to investigate the pharmaceutical effects of a drug at molecular targets distinct from (off-target) the intended therapeutic molecular target (on-target). Data from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on VIOXX, rofecoxib) trial, raised significant concerns about COX-2 inhibition as a primary or secondary target, shaping the screening and decision-making processes of some pharmaceutical companies. COX-2 is often included in off-target screens due to cardiovascular (CV) safety concerns about secondary interactions with this target. Several potential mechanisms of COX-2-mediated myocardial infarctions have been considered including, effects on platelet stickiness/aggregation, vasal tone and blood pressure, and endothelial cell activation. In the present study, we focused on each of these mechanisms as potential effects of COX-2 inhibitors, to find evidence of mechanism using various in vitro and in vivo preclinical models. METHODS: Compounds tested in the study, with a range of COX-2 selectivity, included rofecoxib, celecoxib, etodolac, and meloxicam. Compounds were screened for inhibition of COX-2 vs COX-1 enzymatic activity, ex vivo platelet aggregation (using whole blood from multiple species), ex vivo canine femoral vascular ring model, in vitro human endothelial cell activation (with and without COX-2 induction), and in vivo cardiovascular assessment (anesthetized dog). RESULTS: The COX-2 binding assessment generally confirmed the COX-2 selectivity previously reported. COX-2 inhibitors did not have effects on platelet function (spontaneous aggregation or inhibition of aggregation), cardiovascular parameters (mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and left ventricular contractility), or endothelial cell activation. However, rofecoxib uniquely produced an endothelial mediated constriction response in canine femoral arteries. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that rofecoxib-related cardiovascular events in humans are not predicted by COX-2 potency or selectivity. In addition, the vascular ring model suggested possible adverse cardiovascular effects by COX-2 inhibitors, although these effects were not seen in vivo studies. These results may also suggest that COX-2 inhibition alone is not responsible for rofecoxib-mediated adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Derivation and validation of a risk prediction score for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related serious gastrointestinal complications in the elderly.

AIMS: Few studies have quantified the impact of risk factors on GI complications in elderly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users. This study aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction score for severe GI complications to identify high-risk elderly patients using NSAID. METHODS: We used the following two Korean claims datasets: customized data with an enrolment period 2016-2017 for model development, and the sample data in 2019 for external validation. We conducted a nested case-control study for model development and validation. NSAID users were identified as the elderly (≥65 years) who received NSAIDs for more than 30 days. Serious GI complications were defined as hospitalizations or emergency department visits, with a main diagnosis of GI bleeding or perforation. We applied the logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model for variable selection and model fitting. RESULTS: We identified 8176 cases and 81 760 controls with a 1:10 matched follow-up period in the derivation cohort. In the external validation cohort, we identified 372 cases from 254 551 patients. The risk predictors were high-dose NSAIDs, nonselective NSAID, complicated GI ulcer history, male sex, concomitant gastroprotective agents, relevant co-medications, severe renal disease and cirrhosis. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.81) in the external validation dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction model may be a useful tool for reducing the risk of serious GI complications by identifying high-risk elderly patients.

Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalisation in Patients with Osteoarthritis or Back Pain Treated with Ibuprofen Compared to Other NSAIDs or Paracetamol: A Network Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether ibuprofen use, compared with other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2i) or paracetamol, increases the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis or hospitalisation. DESIGN: A prevalent user and active comparator cohort study. SETTING: Two US claims databases (Open Claims and PharMetrics Plus) mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. PARTICIPANTS: Insured patients with a history of osteoarthritis or back pain and receiving ibuprofen, other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol between 1 November, 2019 and 31 January, 2020 (study enrolment window 1) or between 1 February, 2020 and 31 October, 2020 (study enrolment window 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Large-scale propensity score matching and empirical calibration were used to minimise confounding. Incidence and hazard ratios of COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalisation according to drug/s use were estimated and pooled in the same study period across data sources using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Index treatment episode was the primary risk evaluation window, censored at the time of discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 633,562 and 1,063,960 participants were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively, for the ibuprofen versus ns-NSAIDs comparison, 311,669 and 524,470 for ibuprofen versus COX-2i, and 492,002 and 878,598 for ibuprofen versus paracetamol. Meta-analyses of empirically calibrated hazard ratios revealed no significantly differential risk of COVID-19 outcomes in users of ibuprofen versus any of the other studied analgesic classes: hazard ratios were 1.13 (0.96-1.33) for the ibuprofen-ns-NSAIDs comparison, 1.03 (0.83-1.28) for the ibuprofen-COX-2i comparison and 1.13 (0.74-1.73) for ibuprofen-paracetamol comparison on COVID-19 diagnosis in the February 2020-October 2020 window. Similar hazard ratios were found on COVID-19 hospitalisation and across both study periods. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, we found no differential risks of incident COVID-19 diagnosis or COVID-19 hospitalisation for ibuprofen users compared with other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol. Our findings support regulatory recommendations that NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, should be prescribed as indicated in the same way as before the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for those who rely on ibuprofen or NSAIDs to manage chronic arthritis or musculoskeletal pain symptoms.

[Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Cardiovascular Risk]. / Nicht-steroidale Antirheumatika und kardiovaskuläres Risiko.

Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Cardiovascular Risk Abstract. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are amongst the most frequently used drugs worldwide, although medically controlled prescription is missing most of the time. Beside well-known gastro-intestinal and renal side effects, the potentially increased cardiovascular risk under NSAIDs remains underestimated. Nonselective NSAIDs, but also selective COX-2 inhibitors may block and decrease prostacyclin, which itself physiologically would inhibit platelets and promote vasodilation. Furthermore, in selective COX-2 inhibitors a shift towards COX-1 activity may be observed, which further promotes platelet aggregation. Nonselective NSAIDs with a long half-life time are characterized by relatively stable plasma levels and thus a relatively stable platelet inhibition. Non-selective NSAIDs may additionally inhibit acetylsalicylic acid, which negatively affects its effect on platelet inhibition.

Recommendations for the Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Decades Later, Any New Lessons Learned?

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most prescribed pharmacologic therapies worldwide due to their therapeutic analgesic efficacy and relative tolerability. In the past several decades, various cardiovascular (CV) adverse events have emerged regarding both traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) and cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) selective (coxibs). This review will provide an updated report on the CV risk profile of NSAIDs, focusing on several of the larger clinical trials, meta-analyses, and registry studies. We aim to provide rheumatologists with a framework for NSAID use in the context of rheumatologic chronic pain management. Recent findings: In patients with and without CV diseases, the use of NSAIDs, both tNSAIDs and coxibs, is associated with an increased risk of adverse CV events, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cerebrovascular events. These CV risks have increased within weeks of coxib use and higher doses of tNSAIDs. The risk of adverse CV events is heterogenous across NSAIDs; naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen appear to have lower increased CV risk among NSAIDs. A variation in CV risk is associated with multiple factors, including NSAID class, COX-2 selectivity, treatment dose and duration, and baseline patient risk. Summary: Many important questions remain regarding the safety of NSAIDs and whether the culmination of research performed could inform us whether specific patient subtypes or NSAID class may have a more favorable profile. tNSAIDs such as naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen may have a lower CV risk profile, while coxibs have a more favorable GI risk profile. In general, any NSAID can be optimized if used at the lowest effective dose for the shortest amount of time, especially among individuals with increased CV risk.

Looking at NSAIDs from a historical perspective and their current status in drug repurposing for cancer treatment and prevention.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most frequently prescribed drug classes with wide therapeutic applications over the centuries. Starting from the use of salicylate-containing willow leaves to the recent rise and fall of highly selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and the latest dual-acting anti-inflammatory molecules, they have displayed a rapid and ongoing evolution. Despite the enormous advances in the last twenty years, investigators are still in search of the design and development of more potent and safer therapy against inflammatory conditions. This challenge has been increasingly attractive as the emergence of inflammation as a common seed and unifying mechanism for most chronic diseases. Indeed, this fact put the NSAIDs in the spotlight for repurposing against inflammation-related disorders. This review attempts to present a historical perspective on the evolution of NSAIDs, regarding their COX-dependent/independent mode of actions, structural and mechanism-based classifications, and adverse effects. Additionally, a systematic review of previous studies was carried out to show the current situation in drug repurposing, particularly in cancers associated with the GI tract such as gastric and colorectal carcinoma. In the case of non-GI-related cancers, preclinical studies elucidating the effects and modes of action were collected and summarized.

Which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is safer in patients with Non-steroids Exacerbated Respiratory Disease (N-ERD)? A single-center retrospective study.

Introduction: In patients with NSAID-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease (N-ERD), respiratory symptoms occur as a result of the use of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Patients with N-ERD generally tolerate selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs. However, respiratory symptoms may be exacerbated in patients with N-ERD due to the intake of selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs. The aim of this study was to evaluate which selective or partial COX-2 inhibitor NSAID is safer in patients with N-ERD. Materials and Methods: Forty-nine patients with a history of respiratory hypersensitivity reactions to NSAIDs (N-ERD) who underwent a drug challenge test with celecoxib, nimesulide, meloxicam, and paracetamol between January 2021-April 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Result: Of the 49 patients who underwent the drug challenge tests, 16 (32.7%) were male and 33 (67.3%) were female and the mean age was 37.67 ± 11.62 years. The most common comorbidities were chronic urticaria [n= 21 (42.9%)] and allergic rhinitis [n= 21 (42.9%)]. As a result of drug challenge tests, celecoxib, nimesulide, meloxicam, and paracetamol drug challenge tests were positive in 2 (4.1%), 8 (16.3%), 7 (14.3%) and 11 (22.4) patients, respectively. The rate of allergic reaction to celecoxib was statistically significantly lower than other drugs (p= 0.001). In paired comparisons of the drugs, the allergic reaction rate with celecoxib was statistically significantly lower than with nimesulide (p= 0.031) and paracetamol (p= 0.004). Conclusions: Selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs are safe in patients with N-ERD. NSAIDs should be prescribed to these patients following general medical precautions and drug challenge tests.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Imrecoxib, a Novel Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor, in Elderly Healthy Subjects.

Background: Imrecoxib is a novel and moderately selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor with properties of anti-inflammation and alleviating pain, which is widely applied in osteoarthritis patients. The pharmacokinetic data supporting imrecoxib's rational use in elderly population are not available. Purpose: The study aims to investigate the pharmacokinetics of imrecoxib and its main metabolites and explore the safety of imrecoxib in elderly healthy subjects. Methods: A total of 19 healthy subjects including 10 non-elderly and 9 elderly subjects received single dose of 100 mg imrecoxib under fasting condition. Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability profiles were assessed. Results: After oral administration of single dose of 100 mg imrecoxib, it was absorbed into plasma with median time to reach peak concentration (Tmax) around 2 hours. The concentration-time curves of imrecoxib (M0) showed higher interindividual variability in elderly subjects compared with non-elderly subjects. Peak concentration (Cmax) of M0, its hydroxyl metabolite M1 and carboxylated metabolite M2 in plasma increased by 39%, 21% and 17%, and area under concentration-time curve from time 0 to time t (AUC0-t) of M0, M1 and M2 in plasma increased by 34%, 13% and 27%, respectively, in elderly subjects compared with non-elderly subjects. The 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios of Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ of M0, M1 and M2 between the two groups were not located within 80-125%, indicating Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were not completely equivalent between non-elderly and elderly healthy subjects. However, comparison of pharmacokinetic data of M0, M1 and M2 between the two groups showed no significant difference (P>0.05). Imrecoxib was well tolerated in both non-elderly and elderly healthy subjects, especially with favorable gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profiles. Conclusion: Pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of imrecoxib in elderly healthy subjects indicated that no dose adjustment should be required for elderly population.

Low-Dose NSAIDs Efficacy in Orthopedic Applications.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors] and COXIBs (the COX-2 selective inhibitors) may induce several potentially severe and life-threatening issues especially in elderly patients. The use of low-dose NSAIDs is associated with lower risk of side effects compared to the standard dosage. Low-dose NSAIDs could minimize the side effects of these drugs while maintaining their clinical efficacy and effectiveness. The present study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of low-dose NSAIDs in musculoskeletal applications.