Analysis Of Celecoxib Research Articles

Thermodynamic analysis of celecoxib in amphiprotic and amphiprotic-aprotic solvent mixtures at several temperatures

The solubilities of celecoxib (CLX), a COX-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, were determined in water-ethanol and ethanol-ethyl acetate mixtures at several temperatures (288.15-308.15 K). The solubility curves as a function of ethanol ratio were studied at five temperatures, they showed a single maximum located at 50% ethanol-ethyl acetate (δ1 = 22.50 MPa1/2). The measurements of the variation of inherent drug solubility with temperature were used to estimate different thermodynamic parameters, enthalpy, entropy and Gibbs free energy of solution (ΔHS,ΔSS and ΔGShm, respectively). The apparent enthalpies of the solution were a nonlinear function of the ethanol ratio in aqueous mixture. Non-linear enthalpy-entropy compensation analysis was observed indicating different dissolution mechanism with the variation in mixtures composition. The solubility enhancement is entropy driven at water-rich region (0-40% v/v ethanol) and enthalpy controlled at ethanol-rich region (40–100% v/v ethanol), likely due to water-structure loss around nonpolar moieties of the drug and for the ethanol-rich mixtures it is the enthalpy, probably due to the drug better solvation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of celecoxib compared with diclofenac in the treatment of pain in osteoarthritis (OA) within the Swedish health system using an adaptation of the NICE OA model

Objectives:Celecoxib for the treatment of pain resulting from osteoarthritis (OA) was reviewed by the Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket–Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV) in Sweden in late 2010. This study aimed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared to diclofenac plus a PPI in a Swedish setting.Methods:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK developed a health economic model as part of their 2008 assessment of treatments for OA. In this analysis, the model was reconstructed and adapted to a Swedish perspective. Drug costs were updated using the TLV database. Adverse event costs were calculated using the regional price list of Southern Sweden and the standard treatment guidelines from the county council of Stockholm. Costs for treating cardiovascular (CV) events were taken from the Swedish DRG codes and the literature.Results:Over a patient’s lifetime treatment with celecoxib plus a PPI was associated with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.006 per patient when compared to diclofenac plus a PPI. There was an increase in discounted costs of 529kr per patient, which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 82,313kr ($12,141). Sensitivity analysis showed that treatment was more cost effective in patients with an increased risk of bleeding or gastrointestinal (GI) complications.Conclusions:The results suggest that celecoxib plus a PPI is a cost effective treatment for OA when compared to diclofenac plus a PPI. Treatment is shown to be more cost effective in Sweden for patients with a high risk of bleeding or GI complications. It was in this population that the TLV gave a positive recommendation. There are known limitations on efficacy in the original NICE model.

Proteomic Analysis of Celecoxib on Chondrocytes from Patients with Osteoarthritis

Objective: To study a comprehensive proteomic analysis of celecoxib in oseteoarthritis (OA) chondrocytes. Methods: OA chondrocytes were stimulated with celecoxib, IL-1β and IL-1β together with celecoxib. Proteins were extracted from the cells and subjected to 2-dimensional differential image gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE). Proteins of interest were identified by mass spectrometry. Results: Eighty-six protein spots showed significantly different intensities with each reagent or reagent combination. AAA+ protein, HSP47/Serpin, cAMP-dependent protein kinase type II-beta regulatory subunit, alpha-actin-4 and tubulin decreased with the addition of celecoxib, while apolipoprotein A-V, glutamate carboxipeptide 2, mitochondrial stress-70 protein, sorting nexin-9 and GRP78 increased with the addition of celecoxib. GRP78 is a stress protein and may be chondroprotective. Celecoxib modulated IL-1β stimulated chondrocytes, and CD200R and moesin were identified as such resulting proteins. Conclusion: Protein profiles of OA chondrocytes changed after administration of celecoxib. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the function of each protein in OA chondrocytes.

Inhibition of hERG Potassium Channels by Celecoxib and Its Mechanism

BackgroundCelecoxib (Celebrex), a widely prescribed selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, can modulate ion channels independently of cyclooxygenase inhibition. Clinically relevant concentrations of celecoxib can affect ionic currents and alter functioning of neurons and myocytes. In particular, inhibition of Kv2.1 channels by celecoxib leads to arrhythmic beating of Drosophila heart and of rat heart cells in culture. However, the spectrum of ion channels involved in human cardiac excitability differs from that in animal models, including mammalian models, making it difficult to evaluate the relevance of these observations to humans. Our aim was to examine the effects of celecoxib on hERG and other human channels critically involved in regulating human cardiac rhythm, and to explore the mechanisms of any observed effect on the hERG channels.Methods and ResultsCelecoxib inhibited the hERG, SCN5A, KCNQ1 and KCNQ1/MinK channels expressed in HEK-293 cells with IC50s of 6.0 µM, 7.5 µM, 3.5 µM and 3.7 µM respectively, and the KCND3/KChiP2 channels expressed in CHO cells with an IC50 of 10.6 µM. Analysis of celecoxib's effects on hERG channels suggested gating modification as the mechanism of drug action.ConclusionsThe above channels play a significant role in drug-induced long QT syndrome (LQTS) and short QT syndrome (SQTS). Regulatory guidelines require that all new drugs under development be tested for effects on the hERG channel prior to first administration in humans. Our observations raise the question of celecoxib's potential to induce cardiac arrhythmias or other channel related adverse effects, and make a case for examining such possibilities.

Pooled analysis of GI tolerability of 21 randomized controlled trials of celecoxib and nonselective NSAIDs

ABSTRACTObjective: To compare the gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of celecoxib and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at approved doses in patients with common musculoskeletal conditions.Research design and methods: This was a retrospective, pooled analysis of studies selected from the Pfizer Corporate Clinical Trials Registry. Study selection criteria were: (1) Data available as of October 31, 2004; (2) Randomized, parallel-group study design and planned treatment duration of ≥ 2 weeks; (3) At least one nonselective NSAID (naproxen, ibuprofen, or diclofenac) as a comparator; (4) At least one arm with 200 mg or 400 mg celecoxib per day; (5) Patients with osteoarthritis (OA), adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Data were pooled by treatment and by subject from the safety analysis population of each included study. Joint primary end points were the combined incidence of tolerability-related GI adverse events (AEs) (abdominal pain, dyspepsia, nausea, diarrhea, and flatulence), and time to study discontinuation due to any GI AE.Results: In all, 21 studies met the selection criteria. Across the safety analysis populations of the included studies, 7797 patients received celecoxib total daily dose 200 mg/day, 6653 received celecoxib total daily dose 400 mg/day, 2953 received naproxen, 499 received ibuprofen, and 5643 received diclofenac. Tolerability-related GI AEs were reported by significantly fewer celecoxib-treated patients (16.0%) than by those treated with naproxen (24.3%), ibuprofen (24.2%), or diclofenac (19.9%) (p < 0.0001 vs. each comparator). Time to study discontinuation due to any GI AE was significantly longer for celecoxib than for naproxen (p < 0.0001), ibuprofen (p = 0.002), or diclofenac (p = 0.048). In the RA subpopulation (n = 2857), there was no significant difference between the celecoxib and naproxen or ibuprofen groups in incidence of tolerability-related GI AEs and GI AEs.Limitations: The limitations are inherent to the retrospective analysis design.Conclusions: In this pooled analysis of celecoxib at approved doses in OA, RA, and AS, fewer celecoxib-treated patients in the overall population had tolerability-related GI AEs than patients treated with naproxen, ibuprofen, or diclofenac. In addition, celecoxib-treated patients had a significantly longer time to study discontinuation due to GI AEs.