-
Drug Safety Dec 2012The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs; however, there is little information on the risk associated with some NSAIDs and on the impact of risk factors. These data are necessary to evaluate the benefit-risk of individual NSAIDs for clinical and health policy decision making. Within the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [SOS] project aims to develop decision models for regulatory and clinical use of individual NSAIDs according to their GI and cardiovascular safety.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to provide summary relative risks (RR) of upper GI complications (UGIC) associated with the use of individual NSAIDs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.
METHODS
We used the MEDLINE database to identify cohort and case-control studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 2011, providing adjusted effect estimates for UGIC comparing individual NSAIDs with non-use of NSAIDs. We estimated pooled RR and 95% CIs of UGIC for individual NSAIDs overall and by dose using fixed- and random-effects methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS
A total of 2984 articles were identified and 59 were selected for data abstraction. After review of the abstracted information, 28 studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. Pooled RR ranged from 1.43 (95% CI 0.65, 3.15) for aceclofenac to 18.45 (95% CI 10.99, 30.97) for azapropazone. RR was less than 2 for aceclofenac, celecoxib (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17, 1.81) and ibuprofen (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.54, 2.20); 2 to less than 4 for rofecoxib (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.89, 2.86), sulindac (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.90, 4.42), diclofenac (RR 3.34; 95% CI 2.79, 3.99), meloxicam (RR 3.47; 95% CI 2.19, 5.50), nimesulide (RR 3.83; 95% CI 3.20, 4.60) and ketoprofen (RR 3.92; 95% CI 2.70, 5.69); 4-5 for tenoxicam (RR 4.10; 95% CI 2.16, 7.79), naproxen (RR 4.10; 95% CI 3.22, 5.23), indometacin (RR 4.14; 95% CI 2.91, 5.90) and diflunisal (RR 4.37; 95% CI 1.07, 17.81); and greater than 5 for piroxicam (RR 7.43; 95% CI 5.19, 10.63), ketorolac (RR 11.50; 95% CI 5.56, 23.78) and azapropazone. RRs for the use of high daily doses of NSAIDs versus non-use were 2-3 times higher than those associated with low daily doses.
CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed variability in the risk of UGIC among individual NSAIDs as used in clinical practice. Factors influencing findings across studies (e.g. definition and validation of UGIC, exposure assessment, analysis of new vs prevalent users) and the scarce data on the effect of dose and duration of use of NSAIDs and on concurrent use of other medications need to be addressed in future studies, including SOS.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Case-Control Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23137151
DOI: 10.2165/11633470-000000000-00000 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews, we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 26414123
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub3 -
Cureus Jan 2024Sulindac sulfone, an active metabolite of sulindac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, has good anti-inflammatory potential. The antineoplastic effect of sulindac... (Review)
Review
Sulindac sulfone, an active metabolite of sulindac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, has good anti-inflammatory potential. The antineoplastic effect of sulindac sulfone is mediated through a cyclooxygenase inhibitory mechanism, followed by apoptosis and inhibition of cell proliferation. Mounting studies have explored the anti-neoplastic effect of sulindac sulfone in various types of cancers in a dose-dependent manner. In this backdrop, we have conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and dose of sulindac sulfone as an anti-neoplastic agent in human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines (HNSCCs). In this study, we used a systematic literature review approach, and articles were searched in PubMed, and Medline with the keywords "sulindac sulfone," "anti-neoplastic activity," "chemopreventive," and "head and neck squamous cell carcinoma". A hand-search of journals was also performed. Articles were reviewed and analyzed. The analysis reveals that, based on the in vitro studies on various tumor models, the optimum concentration of sulindac sulfone which elicits anti-neoplastic effects is 200-800 µM. The anti-neoplastic effect is mediated through inhibition of cell proliferation and apoptosis. The results of our systematic review show that the anti-neoplastic activity of pharmacologic Sulindac sulfone is part of its dose-dependent activity, which can be safely employed in the therapy for human HNSCCs and would be responsible for a beneficial outcome of the treatment.
PubMed: 38313951
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51692 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Mar 2015To perform a systematic review evaluating the association between sensorineural hearing loss and (1) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as a class, (2) NSAIDs... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review evaluating the association between sensorineural hearing loss and (1) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as a class, (2) NSAIDs available over the counter, (3) NSAIDs in short intravenous courses, (4) prescription NSAIDs utilized by patients without systemic inflammatory conditions, (5) prescription NSAIDs in patients with arthritides, and (6) acetaminophen with and without concomitant narcotic usage.
DATA SOURCES
Computerized searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were updated through May 2014, along with manual searches and inquiries to topic experts.
REVIEW METHODS
The systematic review was performed according to an a priori protocol. Data extraction was performed by 2 independent investigators, and it focused on relevant audiologic measurements, methodological elements related to risk of bias, and potential confounders.
RESULTS
The 23 criterion-meeting studies included a total of 92,532 participants, with mixed results. Sulindac was the only specific agent to have been studied with formal audiometry in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in which hearing was the reported primary outcome: Although an effect was seen in the unadjusted analysis (pure tone threshold>15 dB, 9.3% vs 2.9%; relative risk [RR], 3.2; confidence interval [CI], 1.09-9.55; P=.02), the effect dissipated in the adjusted analysis (P=.09). There was a significant effect on self-reported hearing loss from NSAIDs as a class (RR, 1.21; CI, 1.11-1.33), ibuprofen (RR, 1.13; CI, 1.06-1.19), and acetaminophen (RR, 1.21; CI, 1.11-1.33), but no formal audiometric data confirm or refute this suggested effect. Audiometry has demonstrated profound loss in some instances of acetaminophen-narcotic combination ingestions.
CONCLUSIONS
Data are varied regarding the impact of NSAIDs and acetaminophen on population hearing health.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Audiometry; Hearing; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25560405
DOI: 10.1177/0194599814564533 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2011Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Review Literature as Topic; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 21901726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004This review was split in 2012 and the review question was to be addressed according to three new protocols: (See:... (Review)
Review
EDITORIAL NOTE
This review was split in 2012 and the review question was to be addressed according to three new protocols: (See: http://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010267.pub2; http://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010291.pub2; http://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010325.pub2). These titles were withdrawn at the protocol stage in 2020 as the authors did not make any progress on the reviews. This original review will no longer be updated and may be superseded by new titles hosted by Cochrane Gut in the future.
BACKGROUND
There is evidence from experimental animals studies, prospective and retrospective observational studies that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) may reduce the development of sporadic colorectal adenomas (CRAs) and cancer (CRC) and may induce the regression of adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a systematic review to determine the effect of NSAIDS for the prevention or regression of CRAs and CRC.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2003 were identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
NSAIDS and aspirin (ASA) were the interventions. The primary outcomes were the number of subjects with at least one CRA, the change in polyp burden, and CRC. The secondary outcome was adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The data were combined with the random effects model if clinically and statistically reasonable.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials with 150 familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and 24,143 population subjects met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included sulindac, celecoxib, or aspirin (ASA). From the combined results of three trials, significantly fewer subjects in the low dose ASA group developed recurrent sporadic CRAs [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.61, 0.96), (NNT 12.5 (95% CI 7.7, 25)] after one to three years. In another three trials, phenotypic FAP subjects that received sulindac or celecoxib had a greater proportional reduction (range: 11.9% to 44%) in the number of CRAs compared to those in the control group (range: 4.5% to 10%). There was no significant difference for the outcomes of CRC or adverse events in any of the trials.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
There was evidence from three pooled RCTs that ASA significantly reduces the recurrence of sporadic adenomatous polyps after one to three years. There is evidence from short-term studies to support regression, but not elimination or prevention of CRAs in FAP.
Topics: Adenoma; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Carcinoma; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction
PubMed: 15106236
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004079.pub2 -
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &... May 2003The Apc(Min/+) mouse model and the azoxymethane (AOM) rat model are the main animal models used to study the effect of dietary agents on colorectal cancer. We reviewed... (Review)
Review
The Apc(Min/+) mouse model and the azoxymethane (AOM) rat model are the main animal models used to study the effect of dietary agents on colorectal cancer. We reviewed recently the potency of chemopreventive agents in the AOM rat model (D. E. Corpet and S. Tache, Nutr. Cancer, 43: 1-21, 2002). Here we add the results of a systematic review of the effect of dietary and chemopreventive agents on the tumor yield in Min mice. The review is based on the results of 179 studies from 71 articles and is displayed also on the internet http://corpet.net/min.(2) We compared the efficacy of agents in the Min mouse model and the AOM rat model, and found that they were correlated (r = 0.66; P < 0.001), although some agents that afford strong protection in the AOM rat and the Min mouse small bowel increase the tumor yield in the large bowel of mutant mice. The agents included piroxicam, sulindac, celecoxib, difluoromethylornithine, and polyethylene glycol. The reason for this discrepancy is not known. We also compare the results of rodent studies with those of clinical intervention studies of polyp recurrence. We found that the effect of most of the agents tested was consistent across the animal and clinical models. Our point is thus: rodent models can provide guidance in the selection of prevention approaches to human colon cancer, in particular they suggest that polyethylene glycol, hesperidin, protease inhibitor, sphingomyelin, physical exercise, epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor, (+)-catechin, resveratrol, fish oil, curcumin, caffeate, and thiosulfonate are likely important preventive agents.
Topics: Animals; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Azoxymethane; Chemoprevention; Colonic Neoplasms; Diet; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Mice; Mice, Mutant Strains; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rats
PubMed: 12750232
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Sulindac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and widely available in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sulindac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and widely available in other countries worldwide. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of single dose oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies up to June 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral sulindac for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with meloxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral sulindac in patients with established postoperative pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Sulindac
PubMed: 19821425
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007540.pub2 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023To evaluate the efficacy of Difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) chemoprevention in the high-risk population for colorectal cancer (CRC).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of Difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) chemoprevention in the high-risk population for colorectal cancer (CRC).
METHODS
Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the caliber of the included literature by searching five databases for randomized controlled trials of DFMO chemoprevention in the high-risk population of CRC, with RevMan 5.4, Stata 15.0 and TSA 0.9.5.10 employed to statistically analyze the extracted data. Grade profiler 3.6 was employed for grading the evidence for the outcome indicators (disease progression and adenoma incidence).
RESULTS
Six trials were finally included in this research, with the collective data indicating that the DFMO combination therapy was efficacious in lowering the incidence of recurrent adenomas in patients who had experienced advanced CRC [RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 - 0.83, P < 0.05]. Meta-analysis showed that DFMO combined therapy had no statistical difference in disease progression in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis[RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.14 - 1.86, P > 0.05]; Trial Sequential Analysis reveals that the combination therapy of DFMO effectively diminishes the occurrence of recurrent adenomas in patients with a history of advanced colorectal tumors, displaying a Risk Ratio (RR) of 0.33 with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 0.12 - 0.90 and a significance level of P < 0.05. This combination exhibits a statistically significant difference. Subgroup analysis demonstrates that, depending on the drug treatment regimen (DFMO+ Aspirin/DFMO+ Sulindac), the combination of DFMO and aspirin exhibits an effect comparable to a placebo in diminishing the occurrence of new adenomas in patients with a history of advanced colorectal tumors. However, the combination of DFMO and sulindac significantly mitigates the incidence of recurrent adenomas in this patient population.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicates that the existing randomized controlled trials are adequate to ascertain the efficacy of DFMO combination therapy in diminishing the incidence of recurrent adenomas in patients who have previously encountered advanced colorectal tumors. However, further clinical trials need to be conducted to evaluate the optimum dosage and treatment course of prophylactic implementation of DFMO combination therapy in high-risk populations.
PubMed: 38033490
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1281844 -
Nutrition and Cancer 2002Potential chemopreventive agents for colorectal cancer are assessed in rodents. We speculated that the magnitude of the effect is meaningful and ranked all published... (Review)
Review
Potential chemopreventive agents for colorectal cancer are assessed in rodents. We speculated that the magnitude of the effect is meaningful and ranked all published agents according to their potency. Data were gathered systematically from 137 articles with the aberrant crypt foci (ACF) end point and from 146 articles with the tumor end point. The potency of each agent to reduce the number of ACF is listed in one table and the potency of each agent to reduce the tumor incidence in another table. Both tables are shown in this review and on a website with sorting abilities (http://www.inra.fr/reseau-nacre/sci-memb/corpet/indexan.html). Potency was estimated as the ratio of the value in control rats to the value in treated rats. From each article, only the most potent agent was kept, except in articles reporting the effect of more than seven agents. Among the 186 agents in the ACF table, the median agent reduced the number of ACF by one-half. The most potent agents to reduce azoxymethane-induced ACF were Pluronic, polyethylene glycol, perilla oil with beta-carotene, and sulindac sulfide. Among the 160 agents in the tumor table, the median agent reduced the tumor incidence in rats by one-half. The most potent agents to reduce the incidence of azoxymethane-induced tumors were celecoxib, a protease inhibitor from soy, difluoromethylornithine with piroxicam, polyethylene glycol, and a thiosulfonate. For the 57 agents present in both tables, a significant correlation (r) was found between the potencies against ACF and tumors (r = 0.45, P < 0.001); without celecoxib, a major outlying point in the correlation, r = 0.68 (P < 0.001, n = 56). In conclusion, this review gathers most known chemopreventive agents, ranks the most promising agents against colon carcinogenesis in rats or mice, and further supports the use of ACF as a surrogate end point for tumors in rats.
Topics: Animals; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Colon; Colonic Neoplasms; Precancerous Conditions; Rats
PubMed: 12467130
DOI: 10.1207/S15327914NC431_1