Search

Background: PPARα and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 are overexpressed in certain types of cancer. Thus, developing a dual inhibitor that targets both could be more effective as an anticancer agent than single inhibitors. We have previously shown that an analog of the bezafibrate named AA520 is a PPARα antagonist. Herein, we report the identification of AA520 as a potent COX-2 inhibitor using in silico approaches. In addition, we performed a thorough pharmacological characterization of AA520 towards COX-1 and COX-2 in different in vitro models. Methods: AA520 was characterized for inhibiting platelet COX-1 and monocyte COX-2 activity in human whole blood (HWB) and for effects on lipidomics of eicosanoids using LC-MS/MS. The kinetics of the interaction of AA520 with COX-2 was assessed in the human colon cancer cell line, HCA-7, expressing only COX-2, by testing the COX-2 activity after extensive washing of the cells. The impact of AA520 on cancer cell viability, metabolic activity, and cytotoxicity was tested using the MTT reagent. Results: In HWB, AA520 inhibited in a concentration-dependent fashion LPS-stimulated leukocyte prostaglandin (PG) E2 generation with an IC50 of 0.10 (95% CI: 0.05–0.263) μM while platelet COX-1 was not affected up to 300 μM. AA520 did not affect LPS-induced monocyte COX-2 expression, and other eicosanoids generated by enzymatic and nonenzymatic pathways. AA520 inhibited COX-2-dependent PGE2 generation in the colon cancer cell line HCA7. Comparison of the inhibition of COX-2 and its reversibility by AA520, indomethacin (a time-dependent inhibitor), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) (an irreversible inhibitor), and ibuprofen (a reversible inhibitor) showed that the compound is acting by forming a tightly bound COX-2 interaction. This was confirmed by docking and molecular dynamics studies. Moreover, AA520 (1 μM) significantly reduced MTT in HCA7 cells. Conclusion: We have identified a highly selective COX-2 inhibitor with a unique scaffold. This inhibitor retains PPARα antagonism at the same concentration range. It has the potential to be effective in treating certain types of cancer, such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where COX-2 and PPARα are overexpressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pain and disability management are crucial for a speedy recovery. Combining analgesics with different mechanisms of action provides greater pain relief with lower doses, promoting efficient multimodal analgesia. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety between two fixed-dose combinations (FDC): etoricoxib/tramadol compared to paracetamol/tramadol for the management of acute low back pain (LBP) in a 7-day treatment. Methods: We conducted a phase IIIb, prospective, randomized, and multicenter study in patients with acute LBP treated with etoricoxib 90 mg/tramadol 50 mg (one packet of granules diluted in 100 ml of water, once a day [QD], for 7 days) or paracetamol 975 mg/tramadol 112.5 mg (one tablet of 325 mg/37.5 mg, three times a day [TID], for 7 days) to assess the efficacy (in terms of pain and disability improvement) and safety. Results: One hundred and twenty-four patients were randomized to receive either etoricoxib/tramadol QD (n = 61) or paracetamol/tramadol TID (n = 63). From the magnitude of change in pain evaluations, differences were observed between the treatment groups at 3 [p = 0.054, CI 95% − 0.648 (− 0.010 to 1.306)] and 5 days (p = 0.041). The proportion of patients with a 30% reduction in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score was statistically significant when comparing the treatment groups on the third day of follow-up [p = 0.008, CI 95% 0.241 (0.061–0.421)]. An improvement in LBP's disability to perform activities of daily routine (Oswestry and Roland–Morris questionnaires) was observed in both treatment groups. A total of 79 adverse events (AEs) (38 [48.1%] with etoricoxib/tramadol and 41 [51.9%] with paracetamol/tramadol) were reported. The most frequent AEs were nausea (17.7%) and dizziness (16.4%). Conclusions: The results show the clinical benefits of etoricoxib/tramadol FDC, such as the sparing effect of tramadol dose per day, early therapeutic response rate compared with paracetamol/tramadol; which translates into faster pain relief, better adherence, less tramadol drug dependency, and a reduction of related AEs incidence. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04968158. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Pain and disability management are crucial for a speedy recovery. Combining analgesics with different mechanisms of action provides greater pain relief with lower doses, promoting efficient multimodal analgesia. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety between two fixed-dose combinations (FDC): etoricoxib/tramadol compared to paracetamol/tramadol for the management of acute low back pain (LBP) in a 7-day treatment. Methods We conducted a phase IIIb, prospective, randomized, and multicenter study in patients with acute LBP treated with etoricoxib 90 mg/tramadol 50 mg (one packet of granules diluted in 100 ml of water, once a day [QD], for 7 days) or paracetamol 975 mg/tramadol 112.5 mg (one tablet of 325 mg/37.5 mg, three times a day [TID], for 7 days) to assess the efficacy (in terms of pain and disability improvement) and safety. Results One hundred and twenty-four patients were randomized to receive either etoricoxib/tramadol QD (n = 61) or paracetamol/tramadol TID (n = 63). From the magnitude of change in pain evaluations, differences were observed between the treatment groups at 3 [p = 0.054, CI 95% − 0.648 (− 0.010 to 1.306)] and 5 days (p = 0.041). The proportion of patients with a 30% reduction in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score was statistically significant when comparing the treatment groups on the third day of follow-up [p = 0.008, CI 95% 0.241 (0.061–0.421)]. An improvement in LBP’s disability to perform activities of daily routine (Oswestry and Roland–Morris questionnaires) was observed in both treatment groups. A total of 79 adverse events (AEs) (38 [48.1%] with etoricoxib/tramadol and 41 [51.9%] with paracetamol/tramadol) were reported. The most frequent AEs were nausea (17.7%) and dizziness (16.4%). Conclusions The results show the clinical benefits of etoricoxib/tramadol FDC, such as the sparing effect of tramadol dose per day, early therapeutic response rate compared with paracetamol/tramadol; which translates into faster pain relief, better adherence, less tramadol drug dependency, and a reduction of related AEs incidence. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04968158.

BackgroundPPARα and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 are overexpressed in certain types of cancer. Thus, developing a dual inhibitor that targets both could be more effective as an anticancer agent than single inhibitors. We have previously shown that an analog of the bezafibrate named AA520 is a PPARα antagonist. Herein, we report the identification of AA520 as a potent COX-2 inhibitor using in silico approaches. In addition, we performed a thorough pharmacological characterization of AA520 towards COX-1 and COX-2 in different in vitro models.MethodsAA520 was characterized for inhibiting platelet COX-1 and monocyte COX-2 activity in human whole blood (HWB) and for effects on lipidomics of eicosanoids using LC-MS/MS. The kinetics of the interaction of AA520 with COX-2 was assessed in the human colon cancer cell line, HCA-7, expressing only COX-2, by testing the COX-2 activity after extensive washing of the cells. The impact of AA520 on cancer cell viability, metabolic activity, and cytotoxicity was tested using the MTT reagent.ResultsIn HWB, AA520 inhibited in a concentration-dependent fashion LPS-stimulated leukocyte prostaglandin (PG) E2 generation with an IC50 of 0.10 (95% CI: 0.05–0.263) μM while platelet COX-1 was not affected up to 300 μM. AA520 did not affect LPS-induced monocyte COX-2 expression, and other eicosanoids generated by enzymatic and nonenzymatic pathways. AA520 inhibited COX-2-dependent PGE2 generation in the colon cancer cell line HCA7. Comparison of the inhibition of COX-2 and its reversibility by AA520, indomethacin (a time-dependent inhibitor), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) (an irreversible inhibitor), and ibuprofen (a reversible inhibitor) showed that the compound is acting by forming a tightly bound COX-2 interaction. This was confirmed by docking and molecular dynamics studies. Moreover, AA520 (1 μM) significantly reduced MTT in HCA7 cells.ConclusionWe have identified a highly selective COX-2 inhibitor with a unique scaffold. This inhibitor retains PPARα antagonism at the same concentration range. It has the potential to be effective in treating certain types of cancer, such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where COX-2 and PPARα are overexpressed.

Aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective in treating pain, fever, and inflammation by inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis. However, these agents have a substantial burden of side effects. As a result of the search for a better aspirin, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) was discovered and specific COX-2 antagonists or coxibs were synthesized. Anti-inflammatory benefits were maintained, gastric ulcers occurred, and decreased vascular prostacyclin production (antithrombotic) without a change in thromboxane levels (prothrombotic) caused hypertension and thrombosis and withdrawal of some coxibs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBS) are considered a suitable option for the treatment of hemophilic arthropathy., Areas Covered: The role of traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; (NSAIDS) and COXIBS in people with hemophilia (PWH) and in the non-hemophiliac population has been reviewed in order to know which of them is more advisable in PWH and whether they should be used as the first or second therapeutic step for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain (since there is a discrepancy between what is advised by the WFH and the WHO)., Expert Opinion: For the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain related to hemophilic arthropathy, it is reasonable to use as a first step a combination of oral paracetamol (650 mg per every 6 h) or metamizole (575 mg per every 6 h), one of the COXIBS (e.g. celecoxib 200 mg per once a day) and a proton pump inhibitor (e.g. omeprazole 20 mg per once a day). The possible side effects of COXIBS should never be forgotten. For the treatment of hemophilic arthropathy pain, the risk/benefit ratio of COXIBS should be carefully assessed on an individual basis, although they are more advisable than traditional NSAIDS.