-
Scientific Reports Jan 2022Epidermal growth factor receptors 1 and 2 (EGFR and HER2) are frequently overexpressed in various malignancies. Lapatinib is a dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor that...
Epidermal growth factor receptors 1 and 2 (EGFR and HER2) are frequently overexpressed in various malignancies. Lapatinib is a dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits both EGFR and HER2. Although a phase III trial failed to show the survival benefits of lapatinib treatment after first-line chemotherapy in patients with EGFR/HER2-positive metastatic urothelial carcinoma, the efficacy of lapatinib for untreated urothelial carcinoma is not well defined. Here, we describe the therapeutic efficacy of lapatinib as a first-line treatment in a canine model of muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. In this non-randomized clinical trial, we compared 44 dogs with naturally occurring urothelial carcinoma who received lapatinib and piroxicam, with 42 age-, sex-, and tumor stage-matched dogs that received piroxicam alone. Compared to the dogs treated with piroxicam alone, those administered the lapatinib/piroxicam treatment had a greater reduction in the size of the primary tumor and improved survival. Exploratory analyses showed that HER2 overexpression was associated with response and survival in dogs treated with lapatinib. Our study suggests that lapatinib showed encouraging durable response rates, survival, and tolerability, supporting its therapeutic use for untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma in dogs. The use of lapatinib as a first-line treatment may be investigated further in human patients with urothelial carcinoma.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic; Lapatinib; Male; Muscles; Piroxicam; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Receptor, ErbB-2; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
PubMed: 35027594
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04229-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -3.30 (95% CI -5.33 to -1.27) on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a median follow-up of 56 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 91 days). Four studies measured disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo on disability, with a mean difference from baseline of -0.85 (95% CI -1.30 to -0.40) on a scale from 0 to 24 with a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 42 to 105 days). All six placebo controlled studies also reported adverse events, and suggested that adverse events are not statistically significant more frequent in participants using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Due to the relatively small sample size and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, it is likely that the proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event is underestimated.Two studies compared different types of non-selective NSAIDs, namely ibuprofen versus diclofenac and piroxicam versus indomethacin. The trials did not find any differences between these NSAID types, but both trials had small sample sizes. One trial reported no differences in pain intensity between treatment groups that used selective or non-selective NSAIDs. One other trial compared diflunisal with paracetamol and showed no difference in improvement from baseline on pain intensity score. One trial showed a better global improvement in favour of celecoxib versus tramadol.One included trial compared NSAIDs with 'home-based exercise'. Disability improved more in participants who did exercises versus participants receiving NSAIDs, but pain scores were similar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Six of the 13 included RCTs showed that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo regarding pain intensity. NSAIDs are slightly more effective than placebo regarding disability. However, the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low. When we only included RCTs at low risk of bias, differences in effect between NSAIDs and placebo were reduced. We identified no difference in efficacy between different NSAID types, including selective versus non-selective NSAIDs. Due to inclusion of RCTs only, the relatively small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, we cannot make firm statements about the occurrence of adverse events or whether NSAIDs are safe for long-term use.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Ibuprofen; Indomethacin; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Piroxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26863524
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012087 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Capsaicin; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketoprofen; Musculoskeletal Pain; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Osteoarthritis; Piroxicam; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28497473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008609.pub2 -
Pharmaceutical Research Mar 1995A biopharmaceutics drug classification scheme for correlating in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability is proposed based on recognizing that drug...
A biopharmaceutics drug classification scheme for correlating in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability is proposed based on recognizing that drug dissolution and gastrointestinal permeability are the fundamental parameters controlling rate and extent of drug absorption. This analysis uses a transport model and human permeability results for estimating in vivo drug absorption to illustrate the primary importance of solubility and permeability on drug absorption. The fundamental parameters which define oral drug absorption in humans resulting from this analysis are discussed and used as a basis for this classification scheme. These Biopharmaceutic Drug Classes are defined as: Case 1. High solubility-high permeability drugs, Case 2. Low solubility-high permeability drugs, Case 3. High solubility-low permeability drugs, and Case 4. Low solubility-low permeability drugs. Based on this classification scheme, suggestions are made for setting standards for in vitro drug dissolution testing methodology which will correlate with the in vivo process. This methodology must be based on the physiological and physical chemical properties controlling drug absorption. This analysis points out conditions under which no in vitro-in vivo correlation may be expected e.g. rapidly dissolving low permeability drugs. Furthermore, it is suggested for example that for very rapidly dissolving high solubility drugs, e.g. 85% dissolution in less than 15 minutes, a simple one point dissolution test, is all that may be needed to insure bioavailability. For slowly dissolving drugs a dissolution profile is required with multiple time points in systems which would include low pH, physiological pH, and surfactants and the in vitro conditions should mimic the in vivo processes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Topics: Biological Availability; Cimetidine; Gastric Emptying; In Vitro Techniques; Jejunum; Mathematics; Models, Theoretical; Permeability; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Piroxicam; Solubility
PubMed: 7617530
DOI: 10.1023/a:1016212804288 -
Journal of Ayub Medical College,... 2022Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic degenerative joint disease. Definite treatment of osteoarthritis is still undiscovered. This study was designed to evaluate and...
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic degenerative joint disease. Definite treatment of osteoarthritis is still undiscovered. This study was designed to evaluate and compare the chondroprotective efficacy of piroxicam and triamcinolone in rat model of osteoarthritis.
METHODS
This laboratory based experimental study was conducted in Pharmacology Department, Army Medical College, Rawalpindi, from April-June 2019. Osteoarthritis was induced by medial meniscectomy and anterior cruciate ligament resection in knee joints of twenty-four rats. They were divided in three groups with eight rats in each. Group I, II and III were control, piroxicam and triamcinolone groups that were treated by intra articular saline, piroxicam and triamcinolone once weekly for four weeks respectively and then gait pattern was scored. Animals were euthanized thereafter and samples were taken for histopathological analysis.
RESULTS
Comparison of gait score of control, piroxicam and triamcinolone groups exhibited a p-value of <0.01. Intergroup comparison of gait of group I and II, group I and III and group II and IV depicted pvalue of <0.001,0.013 and 0.013 respectively. Likewise histopathological comparison of control, piroxicam and triamcinolone groups showed p-value of <0.01. While Intergroup histopathological comparison of group I and II, group I and III and group II and IV showed p-value of <0.001, <0.001 and 0.008 respectively.
CONCLUSION
Comparison of control group with treatment group proved chondroprotective efficacy of piroxicam and triamcinolone. On comparison of treatment groups, it was concluded that piroxicam has better chondroprotective efficacy as compared to triamcinolone.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Knee Joint; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Piroxicam; Rats; Triamcinolone
PubMed: 35466627
DOI: 10.55519/JAMC-01-8924 -
JBRA Assisted Reproduction Sep 2023Endogenous prostaglandins are involved in hemostasis, renal excretion of electrolytes, and implicated in dysmenorrhea. Piroxicam and Nitroglycerin are common drugs used...
OBJECTIVE
Endogenous prostaglandins are involved in hemostasis, renal excretion of electrolytes, and implicated in dysmenorrhea. Piroxicam and Nitroglycerin are common drugs used in treating dysmenorrhea by inhibiting the cyclooxygenase pathway involved in prostaglandin production. However, studies comparing the effects of these drugs on prostaglandin-modulated hemostasis and renal function are lacking.
METHODS
Fifteen female rats (120-160g) were divided into 3 groups (20 per group), namely Control (distilled water, 0.3 mL), Piroxicam treated (3mg/kg) and Nitroglycerin treated (1 mg/kg). Di-estrous phase was confirmed in animals in each group using the Pipette smear method. Treatment was administered for 4 days covering the estrous cycle. Bleeding and clotting time were assessed and blood concentrations of sodium, potassium, urea and platelet counts were evaluated in all phases. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Newman-Keuls post-hoc test. Statistical significance was considered at p<0.0.
RESULTS
The nitroglycerin-treated group showed significant increases in blood potassium during di-estrous while the piroxicam-treated group showed significant increases in blood potassium, urea and clotting time with a significant decrease in sodium levels during di-estrous compared to controls. Results obtained in other phases were not significant compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS
The study showed that Nitroglycerin produces minimum alteration of blood and electrolyte indices compared to piroxicam during di-estrous.
Topics: Humans; Female; Rats; Animals; Piroxicam; Rats, Wistar; Nitroglycerin; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Prostaglandins; Dysmenorrhea; Urea; Sodium; Electrolytes; Potassium
PubMed: 37134015
DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20220069 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2015Piroxicam (PXM), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is an enolic benzothiazine and a potent member of the oxicam series. The drug suppresses the synthesis of... (Review)
Review
Piroxicam (PXM), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is an enolic benzothiazine and a potent member of the oxicam series. The drug suppresses the synthesis of proinflammatory enzymes, such as cyclo-oxygenases-1 and -2 (COX-1 and 2), downregulates the production of prostaglandins (PGs) and tromboxanes, and inhibits polyamines production by blocking ornithine decarboxylase induction involved in nonmelanoma skin carcinogenesis. In addition, PXM is able to induce tumor cell apoptosis and suppresses metalloproteinase 2 activities. Skin carcinogenesis is a multistep process in which the accumulation of genetic events leads to a gradually dysplastic cellular expression, deregulation of cell growth, and carcinomatous progression. COX-1 upregulation plays a significant role in PG and vascular epidermal growth factor production supporting tumor growth. Increased level of PGs in premalignant and/or malignant cutaneous tumors is also favored by upregulation of COX-2 and downregulation of the tumor suppressor gene 15-hydroxy-prostaglandin dehydrogenase. Chemoprevention can be a hopeful approach to inhibit carcinoma occurrence before an invasive tumor develops. The chemopreventive effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on nonmelanoma skin cancers has been established. In this study, we highlighted the different modalities of action of PXM on the pathogenesis of nonmelanoma skin cancer, analyzing and evaluating binding modes and energies between COX-1 or COX-2 and PXM by protein-ligand molecular docking. Our clinical experience about the local use of PXM on actinic keratoses and field cancerization is also reported, confirming its efficacy as target therapy.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Apoptosis; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Humans; Matrix Metalloproteinase 2; Molecular Docking Simulation; Piroxicam; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 26604686
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S84849