Dose Of Etodolac Research Articles

Chemotherapy in hormone-refractory prostate cancer: Docetaxel with and without VT122.

e16062 Background: Randomized study in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel and the benefit of adding VT122. Methods: Castration resistant prostate cancer with bone metastasis, symptomatic were treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 week and prednisolone with continued androgen suppression, LHRH analogue and zoledronic acid, every 28 days with or without VT122. VT122 is a drug combination of etodolac, a COX-2 inhibitor and propranolol, a beta blocker with anti angiogenic properties; this combination has previously been shown to be anti cachectic, anti neoplastic.The dose of etodolac was titrated by C-reactive protein levels to a maximum of 800 mg/day. The dose of propranolol was titrated to keep heart rate at around 60 b/min to 70 b/min. GCSF was allowed, all patients were given Calcium and VitaminD. The primary end point was time to progression, a composite end point of objective progression by RECIST criteria, PSA progression or pain progression, whichever occurred first was applied.The McGill questionnaire was applied to patients. Number of patients 69; 34 in docetaxel arm; 35 in VT122 arm. Age between 50-65 years. Taken from 3 centers with PS ECOG <2 controlled comorbidity with stable analgesic regime. All patients were planned for 6 cycles of docetaxel. Follow-up was for a period of two years. Results: Median age of 62 years with ECOG status 1 was seen in 88%. The median PSA value was seen as 138 ng/ml (10 - 600). 66% in both arms had measurable disease. Conclusions: Addition of VT122 improves response rates, duration of response and symptom scales along with 1-year survival which are statistically significant; toxicities are also significantly decreased and indicating increased efficacy and safety profile of docetaxel. The efficacy and control of toxicity and easy to administer makes this an attractive combination. [Table: see text]

The effect of β-adrenergic blockade and COX-2 inhibition on healing of colon, muscle, and skin in rats undergoing colonic anastomosis

. Objective: COX inhibitors and b-adrenergic blockers were recently shown to reduce cancer progression in animal models through various mechanisms. These include the prevention of immune suppression during the critical perioperative period, and the preclusion of direct promoting effects of catecholamines and prostaglandins on malignant tissue growth. To assess the safety of such pharmacological treatments in the context of oncologic surgery, the current study evaluates wound healing efficacy in the skin, muscle, and colon tissues in rats undergoing colonic anastomosis. Methods: F344 rats were treated daily with a COX-2 inhibitor (etodolac), a b-adrenergic blocker (propranolol), both drugs or vehicles. All rats underwent skin punch biopsy, and half were also subjected to laparotomy and colonic anastomosis. Tensile strength of the abdominal wall and colonic bursting pressure were assessed on Days 3, 7, and 30 postoperatively, and skin biopsy site healing was scored on Days 2, 4, and 6 postoperatively. Results: None of the drug treatments produced any deleterious effects along the expected course of tissue healing. On Day 30, colon bursting pressure showed an abnormal strengthening in animals undergoing anastomosis compared to non-operated animals, across all drug treatments. This abnormal strengthening was attenuated by etodolac. In the skin, surgery reduced healing rate, irrespective of drug treatments. Conclusions: Effective doses of etodolac and propranolol caused no negative effects on wound healing processes in rats. The apparent safety of such treatments, together with their potential clinical benefits, suggests the incorporation of these treatments in oncologic patients undergoing curative tumor resection.

Single dose oral etodolac for acute postoperative pain in adults.

Etodolac is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, with evidence of efficacy in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Its analgesic efficacy in postoperative pain has not been clearly established. There are no systematic reviews on Etodolac's use in this condition. To assess the analgesic efficacy of etodolac in single oral doses for moderate and severe postoperative pain. We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to May 2009. Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered etodolac (any formulation) in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals were collected. Nine studies (1459 participants) compared etodolac and placebo. Studies were of adequate reporting quality, and the majority of participants had pain following dental extractions. The dose of etodolac used was 25 mg to 1200 mg, with most of the information for 100 mg and 200 mg. For at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours compared with placebo the NNT for etodolac 100 mg (498 participants) was 4.8 (3.5 to 7.8) and for etodolac 200 mg (670 participants) it was 3.3 (2.7 to 4.2). Very limited information with the extended release formulation did not suggest improved benefit for this outcome.The proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 41% with 100 mg and 44% with 200 mg. Remedication was needed by about 60% with etodolac 200 mg or 400 mg over 6 to 8 hours, compared with almost 80% with placebo.Adverse events were uncommon, and not significantly different form placebo. Etodolac 200 mg may be a useful analgesic in postoperative pain, with efficacy similar to paracetamol 1000 mg and celecoxib 200 mg. Higher doses may provide analgesia equivalent to more commonly used drugs, such as ibuprofen 400 mg, naproxen 500 mg and diclofenac 50 mg.

WITHDRAWN: Non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for treating osteoarthritis of the knee.

Reason for withdrawal from publication Review has been withdrawn until an update can be undertaken to reflect the current evidence. To view the published versions of this article, please click the 'Other versions' tab.

건일로딘 정(미결정에토돌락 200 mg)에 대한 에토돌 정의 생물학적동등성

A bioequivalence of tablets (Yuhan corporation) and tablets (Kuhnil Pharm. Co., Ltd.) was evaluated according to the guideline of Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA). Single 200 mg dose of etodolac of each medicine was administered orally to 24 healthy male volunteers. This study was performed in a crossover design. Concentrations of etodolac in human plasma were monitored by a high-performance liquid chromatography. (the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 hr) was calculated by the linear trapezoidal rule method. (maximum plasma drug concentration) and (time to reach ) were compiled from the plasma concentration-time data. Analysis of variance was performed using logarithmically transformed and . No significant sequence effect was found for all of the bioavailability parameters. The 90% confidence intervals of the ratio and the ratio for were 1.01-1.10 and 0.87-1.06, respectively. This study demonstrated a bioequivalence of and with respect to the rate and extent of absorption.

Non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the knee.

To determine whether there is a difference in the relative efficacy of individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. We searched Medline (1966-1995) and Bids Embase (Jan-Dec, 1980-1995). The searches were limited to publications in the English language, and were last perfomed in November 1996. We used modified Cochrane Collaboration search strategy to identify all randomised controlled trials. The MeSH heading osteoarthritis was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs licensed in the UK for the management of OA in general practice. The search of Embase used the term "osteoarthritis" if present in the abstract, title or keywords, and was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs, only if they were mentioned in the title, abstract or keywords. All double blind, randomised controlled trials, in the English language, comparing the efficacy of two non-aspirin NSAIDs in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee, were selected. Only trials with subjects aged 16 years and over, with clinical and/or radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of OA knee were included. Studies which compared one "trial" NSAID with one "reference" NSAID were included provided they were non-aspirin NSAIDs available in the UK and were licensed for the treatment of OA by general practitioners. Trials which were placebo-controlled and which also involved the comparison of two NSAIDs were also included. The methodological design of each study was scored according to a pre-determined system. The three main outcome measures of pain, physical function and patient global assessment were chosen based on the core set agreed upon by OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials). These were used to determine the power of each trial. The equivalency of NSAID doses was calculated using the percentage of the recommended maximum daily dose. Sample size estimates for the detection of clinically relevant changes in outcome measures used in the assessment of OA knee were used for power calculations. These calculations were performed to determine whether the trials were of a sufficient size to detect clinically relevant differences which were statistically significant. The calculations incorporate estimates of standard deviation, and minimum, median and maximum differences (delta) between drugs which are deemed to be clinically important. The number of "withdrawals due to lack of efficacy" was also selected as an outcome measure for this review. The Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where possible. The results of studies which compared the same trial and reference NSAIDs were combined where possible. Of the 1151 trials identified by the search strategy, 22 involved knee osteoarthritis only. Sixteen of these trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were entered in the review. Eight NSAIDs were represented in these trials. Etodolac was represented in 11 trials. The reference NSAID in these trials was piroxicam (n=3), naproxen(n=3), diclofenac (n=3), indomethacin (n=1), and, nabumetone (n=1). The reported methodological design of the trials was poor, with a median score of 3 (out of a maximum of 8). The results of the trials comparing the same trial and reference NSAIDs were pooled for the outcome "withdrawal due to lack of efficacy". For the comparison, etodolac vesus piroxicam, the odds ratio favoured etodolac i.e. patients receiving etodolac were less likely to withdraw due to lack of efficacy. The dose of etodolac used in each of these three studies, however, was greater than the corresponding dose of piroxicam (based on percentage maximum daily dose). The significance of these results is therefore questionable. For the comparisons etodolac versus diclofenac, and etodolac versus naproxen, there were no clear differences betw

Bioavailability and Bioequivalence of Two Formulations of Etodolac (Tablets and Suppositories)

We studied the influence of administration route on the biopharmaceutical behavior of etodolac. The levels obtained in plasma when the same dose of etodolac Is administered orally (tablets, dosage form A) and rectally (suppositories, dosage form B) were compared. The study was done in a crossover design with healthy volunteers of both sexes, of average build, and younger than 35 years of age. From the concentration in plasma-time data, the maximum concentration in plasma (Cmax), time to Cmax, and area under the curve up to the last measurable concentration (AUC•>) or infinity (AUCo) were calculated and compared by analysis of variance. With the exception of Cmax, no significant differences between treatments were found in the rest of the parameters. Finally, with formulation A (tablets) as a reference, the relative bioavailability was established, on the basis of the ratio (B:A) of AUCQ and AUC•, within the range 100 ± 20%. The results Indicate that the two routes of administration are bioequivalent and that the rectal route is an alternative administration route for etodolac.

Profile of etodolac: Pharmacokinetic evaluation in special populations

The pharmacokinetics of etodolac, a new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, were compared in normal subjects, in patients with renal and hepatic disease, and in elderly patients. In 28 normal subjects, orally administered etodolac was rapidly absorbed. By 1.2 hours after ingestion of a 200 mg dose, the maximum serum concentration (Cmax) averaged 15.9 micrograms/ml, with more than 99% of the drug bound to serum protein. Clearance was primarily hepatic. The mean half-life (t1/2) was 6 to 7 hours. There were no apparent differences in Cmax, the time at which Cmax occurred (tmax), area under the serum concentration/time curve (AUC0-24), or t1/2 between groups of young men (n = 20), elderly men (n = 24), and elderly men with osteoarthritis (n = 20), after a single dose of etodolac or after 7 days of subchronic administration. Moreover there was no evidence of accumulation. There also were no differences in Cmax, tmax, AUC0-24 or t1/2 between groups of normal subjects (n = 10) and patients with mild-to-moderate renal impairment (n = 10). Patients with end-stage renal disease who were receiving chronic hemodialysis had the same mean serum concentration of free drug as normal subjects, even though mean serum levels of protein-bound etodolac were slightly lower than those in the normal subjects. The only significant (p less than 0.05) difference between patients with stable hepatic cirrhosis and normal, age-matched subjects was a slightly shorter tmax in the cirrhotic subjects (1.1 vs. 1.4 hours). These findings suggest that no alteration of etodolac dosage would be necessary in these high-risk groups.

Temporal relationships of the anti-inflammatory effect of etodolac in the adjuvant arthritic rat.

Using the curative model of adjuvant arthritis, adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with vehicle or etodolac (1, 3, and 8 mg/kg/day, po) for 9 days. Rats were sacrificed after 1, 2, 4, or 9 daily doses, and paw volume, PGE2 concentrations, and N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG) activity were determined in the left adjuvant-injected hindpaws. All three doses of etodolac caused a significant decrease in PGE2 concentrations after the first dose, and the decreases persisted for 2, 4, and 9 days of treatment, respectively. In rats given four daily doses of 3 and 8 mg/kg/day of etodolac, the paw volume was significantly decreased by about 50%, compared with that of the arthritic controls. A significant decrease in NAG activity was observed only after nine daily doses of 8 mg/kg/day etodolac. The sequence of anti-inflammatory events manifested following etodolac treatment would appear to be an initial inhibition of PGE2 synthesis, followed by resorption of fluid, and then by a reduction in macrophage infiltration.

Effect of high-dose etodolac on renal function.

Previous studies from our laboratory have demonstrated transient effects on renal function by etodolac, 200 mg b.i.d. The current study assessed the effects of a larger dose of etodolac (500 mg b.i.d.) to explore the time course of its renal effects and to determine whether the transient effect would become more prolonged with a larger dose. We studied 10 normal subjects and nine patients with renal insufficiency, examining the effects of the first 500 mg dose of etodolac as well as 4 days of b.i.d. administration. In both groups, etodolac transiently decreased fractional excretions of sodium and chloride and urinary prostaglandin E2. In patients, etodolac also transiently decreased inulin and para-aminohippuric acid clearances and urinary 6-keto-prostaglandin F1 alpha. Chronic administration caused no changes in renal function in either group. In summary, in this relatively small group of patients, high-dose etodolac caused only transient, fully reversible effects on renal function, the cumulative effect of which was negligible.

Double-blind evaluation of etodolac (200 mg, 400 mg) compared with zomepirac (100 mg) and placebo on third molar extraction pain

This controlled, single dose study has demonstrated that compared with placebo, substantial analgesia is obtained with 200 and 400 mg doses of etodolac. The analgesic effects of both doses of etodolac were not notably different from each other or significantly different from zomepirac, a proven analgesic. With respect to safety, both doses of etodolac were well tolerated, with no reports of serious or dose related adverse side effects.

Gastrointestinal Blood Loss in Arthritic Patients Receiving Chronic Dosing with Etodolac and Piroxicam

Etodolac, a new anti-inflammatory analgesic drug found to be effective in treating arthritis in a dose range of 100 to 300 mg bid, has been shown to induce significantly less gastrointestinal microbleeding in normal men than several other NSAIDs. In this study, the effect on gastrointestinal blood loss of high-dose etodolac, 300 and 500 mg bid, versus piroxicam at its normal therapeutic dose of 20 mg qd, was investigated by the 51Cr method in 23 men with osteo- or rheumatoid arthritis. Placebo periods preceded and followed 28 days of active drug treatment. Blood and stool analyses were performed by an analyst not aware of drug assignment or study design. Patients receiving piroxicam, but not those receiving either dose of etodolac, had a significantly higher mean level of fecal blood loss in the active treatment phase compared with the pretreatment placebo level (p less than 0.01). Further, microbleeding was significantly greater for the piroxicam group during treatment than for either of the etodolac groups (p less than 0.01). There were no significant differences in fecal blood loss between the two groups receiving etodolac compared with pretreatment. Even at doses two to three times those found effective in the treatment of arthritis, etodolac produces no increase in fecal blood loss, in contrast to blood loss seen with the recommended dose of piroxicam. Fecal blood loss in osteoarthritic patients, not receiving an NSAID, was similar to normal subjects in previous studies.