Different patterns of inhibition of adrenaline-induced platelet aggregation and kinetics in vivo by acetylsalicylic acid and indobufen

The inhibitory effect of 50 mg/kg lysyl acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) intravenously injected 24 and 4 h before 80 micrograms/kg adrenaline, 40 mg/kg indobufen injected 15 min before, or a combination of ASA plus indobufen on the platelet aggregation and kinetics was evaluated in anaesthetized dogs previously injected with 111indium- (111In-) labelled platelets using gamma-camera dynamics studies. The highest degree of inhibition, indicated by the lowest platelet aggregation ratio decrease and the most significant 111In-labelled platelet mobilization from hepatic and splenic stores with a corresponding increase of labelled and unlabelled platelet counts in blood, was obtained in ASA-treated dogs. Such changes were less marked when ASA plus indobufen was injected. In indobufen-treated dogs a similar mobilization of 111In-labelled platelets with an increase in circulating platelet numbers was evident only after the second adrenaline injection. It is concluded that platelet mobilization is mainly dependent on the production of an ASA-sensitive substance.     

Efficacy and tolerability of meloxicam in an observational, controlled cohort study in patients with rheumatic disease

BACKGROUND: Meloxicam is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that inhibits cyclooxygenase-2 without affecting platelet aggregation. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of meloxicam under natural prescribing conditions for up to 6 months. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study. Participating centers were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: the meloxicam-only group, and the group who received comparator NSAIDs (ie, diclofenac, ibuprofen, piroxicam, or indomethacin). RESULTS: A total of 4526 patients received either meloxicam (n = 2530) or a comparator NSAID (n = 1996). Treatment groups were comparable in terms of observed efficacy measures. Meloxicam patients had significantly lower rates of reported gastrointestinal (GI) adverse drug reactions (1.80% vs 3.20%; P = 0.003), including dyspepsia (0.08% vs 0.35%; P = 0.049), abdominal pain (0.91% vs 1.90%; P = 0.006), gastritis (0.08% vs 0.60%; P = 0.002), and GI bleeding (0.08% vs 0.50%; P = 0.007), compared with those receiving comparator NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: There was evidence that meloxicam was prescribed preferentially to patients who had not responded to NSAIDs previously, who had previously experienced NSAID-induced side effects (and so were at high risk for developing NSAID-induced GI toxicity), or who were more seriously impaired. The nonrandomized and unblinded nature of this study limits the conclusions that can be drawn concerning efficacy or tolerability. Nevertheless, the study results are consistent with the favorable GI tolerability seen with meloxicam in double-blind comparative trials.     

Bleeding time and antiplatelet agents in normal volunteers

Summary Clinical trials have shown that antiplatelet agents are effective in the prevention of thrombosis in arterial diseases and increase bleeding time. To compare the effects of three such drugs [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) at two dose levels, ticlopidine and indobufen] on bleeding time, we performed a randomized cross-over study on 12 normal subjects. All received the four treatments (ASA 300 mg daily and 500 mg twice daily, ticlopidine 250 mg twice daily and indobufen 200 mg twice daily, each for 6 days plus one dose on day 7) in a sequential manner with a washout period of 15 days between the treatments. Bleeding time was measured using a Surgicut device (Ortho, Milan, Italy) before treatment, 2 and 24 h after the first administration, and before and 2, 24, 48 and 72 h after the last administration. ASA (at both doses) and indobufen quickly induced a significant prolongation of bleeding time, but the effect of indobufen soon wore off after the treatment was stopped, unlike that of ASA. In contrast, ticlopidine treatment prolonged bleeding time only after the first 24 h, and after 7 days the mean value was significantly higher than with ASA (both doses) and indobufen. This significant difference in bleeding time between ticlopidine and the other drugs was still present 48 h after the end of treatment.     

Bleeding time and antiplatelet agents in normal volunteers.

Clinical trials have shown that antiplatelet agents are effective in the prevention of thrombosis in arterial diseases and increase bleeding time. To compare the effects of three such drugs [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) at two dose levels, ticlopidine and indobufen] on bleeding time, we performed a randomized cross-over study on 12 normal subjects. All received the four treatments (ASA 300 mg daily and 500 mg twice daily, ticlopidine 250 mg twice daily and indobufen 200 mg twice daily, each for 6 days plus one dose on day 7) in a sequential manner with a washout period of 15 days between the treatments. Bleeding time was measured using a Surgicut device (Ortho, Milan, Italy) before treatment, 2 and 24 h after the first administration, and before and 2, 24, 48 and 72 h after the last administration. ASA (at both doses) and indobufen quickly induced a significant prolongation of bleeding time, but the effect of indobufen soon wore off after the treatment was stopped, unlike that of ASA. In contrast, ticlopidine treatment prolonged bleeding time only after the first 24 h, and after 7 days the mean value was significantly higher than with ASA (both doses) and indobufen. This significant difference in bleeding time between ticlopidine and the other drugs was still present 48 h after the end of treatment.     

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors: importance and limitations

The discovery of an inducible form of cyclooxygenase (COX-2) requires a refinement of the theory that inhibition of cyclooxygenase activity explains both therapeutic effects and side-effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Selective COX-2 inhibitors have demonstrated in clinical trials a significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability than classical NSAIDs, for the same anti-inflammatory activity. Their tolerability in patients with active ulcer or with a recent history of ulcer as well as in patients suffering from cardiovascular or renal diseases has still to be investigated in detail. Their therapeutic potential in several new indications, including pre-term labour, colorectal cancer and Alzheimer's disease, is currently being investigated.     

Platelet function in whole-blood donors is impaired: the effects of painkillers

BACKGROUND: Aspirin (ASA) or non-aspirin-like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) influence platelet (PLT) function by inhibiting cyclooxygenase enzymes. In this study, the aim was to address the use of ASA or NSAIDs before donation and the effect on PLT function. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donors were asked questions about recent use of ASA or NSAIDs. Furthermore, PLT function was evaluated by measurement of the closure time (CT) in a PLT function analyzer (PFA-100, Dade Behring) and by aggregometry (response to ADP or arachidonic acid [AA]). RESULTS: Of 100 questioned donors, 22 percent had used ASA (n = 4), NSAIDs (n = 6), or paracetamol (n = 12) before donation. Upon assessment of the PLT function in the PFA-100, 27 donors showed values of greater than 180 seconds, indicative of impaired PLT function. Of these, only 7 had used pain killers before donation. Furthermore, 15 of 22 users had normal CTs. Aggregation after stimulation with AA was absent in 33 PLT-rich samples. Again only 8 had reported use of ASA (3), NSAIDs (1), or paracetamol (4). Of the 22 users, 14 had normal AA aggregation responses. All donor samples showed ADP-induced aggregation, indicating PLT integrity. There was no difference between the group of donors who reported the intake of ASA or NSAIDs and the group of donors who did not with respect to the tested PLT function assays. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that there is a considerable group of donors that use PLT-influencing medication before donation. A relation between the reported use and impaired PLT function in blood donors could not be established, however. Impaired PLT function as tested may have other causes than intake of ASA or NSAIDs.     

Need to develop new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug formulations

BackgroundIn the management of pain, primary care physicians are often the first to diagnose and treat acute or chronic painful conditions. This places them in an important intersection to manage pain, in which safe and effective therapeutic options are paramount for their patients. For decades, NSAIDs have been routinely prescribed for relief of mild to moderate acute and chronic pain. Yet, safety and tolerability concerns associated with the use of this class of drugs continue to be an issue for patients and clinicians.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to discuss the unmet medical needs of patients in the management of pain and inflammation, review the dose-dependent safety data associated with use of NSAIDs, and discuss the need to develop new NSAID formulations to improve safety and tolerability while maintaining efficacy.MethodsWe performed literature searches of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases through December 2012 for articles in English that reported dose-dependent safety and tolerability data associated with use of NSAIDs.ResultsThe risk of serious, dose-dependent adverse events involving the gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and kidneys is associated with use of NSAIDs. On the basis of these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration has requested that the package insert for all NSAIDs be revised to include a boxed warning highlighting the potential increased risk of cardiovascular events and the risk of serious, and potentially life-threatening, gastrointestinal tract bleeding. While using lower dosages of a particular NSAID may be associated with lower rates of adverse events, maintaining the clinical efficacy of standard NSAID dosages remains a challenge.ConclusionsThere is a need to develop new and effective NSAID formulations to minimize the safety and tolerability concerns associated with currently available NSAIDs, yet maintain efficacy in management of inflammation and pain.     

The role of rofecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor, for the treatment of non-cancer pain: a review.

Rofecoxib was the first specific inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) approved for the treatment of acute pain. It has been shown to provide analgesia that is significantly better than placebo and has an onset of action and efficacy similar to that of traditional nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as naproxen and ibuprofen. In addition, the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib has been demonstrated to be superior to that of the opioid combination of codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg in an acute dental pain model. For the treatment of acute pain, the efficacy of rofecoxib was further demonstrated in a study of patients who had undergone orthopedic surgery. Rofecoxib has been found to be as effective as naproxen sodium and more effective than placebo in studies evaluating its use for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. In patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip, rofecoxib is superior to placebo and similar to diclofenac and ibuprofen in relieving OA pain and improving physical function. Rofecoxib has also been shown to be superior to acetaminophen and celecoxib after 6 weeks of treatment for OA. The efficacy of rofecoxib has also been demonstrated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and low back pain. The advantages of using COX-2-specific NSAIDs include convenient once-daily dosing schedule and improved safety compared with traditional NSAIDs. Two large outcomes studies, VIGOR and CLASS, have shown that gastric mucosal ulceration occurs significantly less often in patients taking COX-2-specific inhibitors than in those treated with ibuprofen, diclofenac, or naproxen and occurs with a similar incidence to that of placebo. Absence of any effect on platelet aggregation and bleeding time further distinguishes these agents from traditional NSAIDs. Because COX-2-specific inhibitors do not have an antiplatelet effect, they cannot be used as a substitute for low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis. Rofecoxib is a safe and highly effective alternative to previously available NSAIDs and should be considered for the treatment of acute pain conditions in adult patients, especially those at risk for developing gastrointestinal complications. It is preferred in the perioperative setting because of its analgesic efficacy and lack of platelet effects. Because of its more favorable gastrointestinal toxicity profile compared with nonselective NSAIDs, rofecoxib is safer in patients, especially older patients, for whom chronic anti-inflammatory or analgesic therapy is indicated.     

Rofecoxib: clinical pharmacology and clinical experience

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib is a member of a subgroup of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) known as cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective inhibitors. It has been studied in adult and elderly patients in a number of painful conditions (primary dysmenorrhea, acute pain after dental and orthopedic surgery, osteoarthritis [OA], and rheumatoid arthritis). OBJECTIVE: This review discusses the clinical pharmacology of and clinical experience with rofecoxib, and the role of COX-2-selective inhibitors in clinical practice. METHODS: Pertinent studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as the Web sites and proceedings of relevant scientific meetings. RESULTS: Although the published literature is limited, the data indicate that rofecoxib is an effective analgesic agent for the painful conditions in which it has been studied. As a COX-2-selective inhibitor, rofecoxib offers safety advantages over traditional NSAIDs. In clinical trials, gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, including mucosal damage, perforation, ulcers, and bleeding, occurred significantly less often in healthy volunteers and patients treated with rofecoxib than in those who received NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, naproxen, or diclofenac (all comparisons, P < 0.001). In terms of renal toxicity, rofecoxib does not appear to offer a safety advantage over traditional NSAIDs. Rofecoxib has not been shown to affect platelets (bleeding time and platelet aggregation), unlike traditional NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib is an appropriate choice for patients who do not obtain adequate analgesia with acetaminophen and those who have not obtained adequate analgesia from, cannot tolerate, or are at risk for GI toxicity with traditional NSAIDs. Patients who require chronic analgesic medication (ie, those with OA), including those who take other medications daily for comorbid conditions, may also benefit from the once-daily dosing regimen of rofecoxib.     

Clinical data on COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitors: what possible alerts in pharmacovigilance?

Adverse effects of NSAIDs are serious, mainly related to gastrointestinal bleeding, and throughout the world cause about 260,000 hospitalizations and 26,000 deaths a year, but each day at least thirty million patients take NSAIDs. Selective COX-2 inhibitors (i.e. celecoxib, rofecoxib) have demonstrated in clinical trials better gastrointestinal tolerability but their safety in patients with active ulcer, cardiovascular or renal disease has still to be further investigated. When their long-term safety has been established by pharmacovigilance studies they could be prescribed in the at-risk population or for other indications, including pre-term labour, colorectal cancer and Alzheimer's disease, provided they have shown efficacy and safety in controlled trials.     

Efficacy and safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation during emergency upper endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Recent studies have documented the safety of propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures, but many endoscopists are reluctant to use propofol for high-risk patients because of adverse effects. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of nurse-administered propofol sedation during emergency upper endoscopy for patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a period of 18 months, 120 patients suffering from acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding received propofol sedation administered by a registered nurse. Among these, 15 patients were classified into American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class IV, 84 were ASA class III, and 21 were ASA class II. Patients without gastrointestinal bleeding, who also received propofol during the same period and were matched for age, gender, and ASA class, served as controls. RESULTS: Endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in 98.3 % of patients, and 97.5 % were satisfied with the procedure. In patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, the rates of hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) and hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90 %) were 8.3 % and 6.7 % respectively, values higher than those in the control group. However, neither mask ventilation nor endotracheal intubation was necessary. Although two patients with gastrointestinal bleeding developed pneumonia, most likely due to aspiration during the procedure, they recovered within 5 days of treatment. There were no sedation-associated severe complications or mortalities. CONCLUSION: Using a strict protocol designed to protect the patient's airway and cardiovascular function, nurse-administered propofol sedation during emergency upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is safe and appropriate in cases of acute gastrointestinal bleeding.     

Indobufen versus placebo in the prevention of restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: a double-blind pilot study

A randomized clinical trial was undertaken to assess the efficacy of indobufen in inhibiting platelet adhesiveness in carotid thromboendarterectomy. The patients were treated under double-blind conditions with indobufen and with placebo, and were then assessed by means of scintigraphy with labelled platelets, ultrasonic tomography and angiography for a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Haematological and clinical assessments were also performed. The results of the study suggest that platelet accumulation in carotid endarterectomy may be an early sign of restenosis; anti-aggregant treatment with indobufen carried out at an early stage prior to surgery inhibited platelet accumulation. The final result showed that anti-aggregant treatment had a positive influence on the short- and medium-term outcome of carotid endarterectomy.     

A Thrombelastograph whole blood assay for clinical monitoring of NSAID-insensitive transcellular platelet activation by arachidonic acid

Optical platelet aggregation (OPA) with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was compared with a Thrombelastograph (TEG) whole blood assay for monitoring arachidonic acid (AA)-induced platelet activation. Assays were performed on 47 interventional cardiology and 24 general surgery patients receiving aspirin therapy for cardiovascular disease, as well as 48 volunteers asked to take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or 12 volunteers on chronic NSAID therapy unrelated to diagnosed cardiovascular disease. Whole blood TEG monitoring of NSAID inhibition detected NSAID-insensitive AA activation of platelets in a significantly higher number of cardiology (23%) and surgery (25%) patients and normal volunteers on chronic NSAID (25%) therapy relative to normal subjects not on chronic NSAID therapy (0%). Whole blood NSAID insensitivity was observed with cyclooxygenase-I inhibitors, such as aspirin and ibuprofen; was not affected by Celebrex, a cyclooxygenase-II inhibitor; but was completely inhibited by thromboxane-receptor antagonists. This was not due to platelet NSAID insensitivity, because complete inhibition of AA-activation responses in PRP was observed with either TEG or OPA assays. We confirmed that thromboxane B(2) formation in PRP from NSAID-insensitive subjects was completely inhibited by NSAIDs. However, significant amounts were formed in whole blood from NSAID-insensitive subjects, but not in whole blood from NSAID-sensitive subjects. Thromboxane formation after AA addition was not found in washed blood cells with 90% reduced platelet counts or in leukocyte-rich buffy coat fractions, but could be restored by addition of PRP. NSAID-insensitive activation was inhibited by nordihydroguaiaretic acid, with an IC(50) of 30 micromol, implicating 12- and/or 15-lipoxygenases in this transcellular pathway.     

The role of COX-2 inhibitors in the perioperative setting: efficacy and safety--a systematic review

A new class of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) selective for cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) offers new options for managing perioperative pain. However, new and conflicting data have emerged regarding all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including those selective for COX-2. The data highlight the potential for increased risks of adverse cardiovascular events associated with all NSAIDs and of potential serious skin reactions and gastrointestinal bleeding with specific agents. As of June 2005, the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration suspended all clinical trials involving NSAIDs. This article reviews 30 prospective studies on the role of COX-2 selective inhibitors in the perioperative setting. The studies examined a variety of variables, including efficacy, perioperative opioid reduction, and effects on platelet aggregation and renal function. The data reveal an overall reduction in postoperative opioid use and significant patient satisfaction with perioperative COX-2 use, no effect on platelet aggregation, and a minor negative effect on renal function. The literature suggests that perioperative use of selective COX-2 inhibitors can be well tolerated and efficacious in carefully selected patient groups. Further data are needed to fully examine the role of these drugs in the perioperative setting. Intensive research into cardiovascular issues surrounding all NSAIDs is warranted.     

Diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% w/w with dimethyl sulfoxide compared with placebo for the treatment of osteoarthritis: pooled safety results

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors are frequently recommended for management of osteoarthritis (OA). However, serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systemic adverse events (AEs) are associated with oral NSAIDs and can be treatment limiting. The efficacy of diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% w/w with dimethyl sulfoxide (TDiclo) has been established as superior to placebo and comparable with oral NSAIDs in the management of OA. This study characterizes the safety and tolerability profile of TDiclo compared with placebo through a pooled analysis of data from 1252 patients in 7 randomized controlled trials across 61 centers in the United States and 97 centers in Canada. Patients received TDiclo (n = 911) or placebo (n = 341) for 4 to 12 weeks for management of OA of the hand or knee. The most frequently reported AE was dry skin, occurring in 33.0% of patients receiving TDiclo and 5.0% of patients receiving placebo (P < 0.001). Dyspepsia was the most common gastrointestinal reaction, reported by 7.7% of patients receiving TDiclo and 2.9% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.002). Changes in vital signs and laboratory assessments of hepatic and renal function were similar between the 2 groups; TDiclo did not increase mean blood pressure, nor was it associated with hypertension. The rate of serious AEs favored placebo in both groups (0.9% for TDiclo vs 1.5% for placebo; P = 0.358), as did the rate of severe AEs (4.4% vs 7.6%; P = 0.023). The most common reason for study discontinuation was dry skin (2.5% vs 0.3%). Results from this analysis suggest that TDiclo is well tolerated in a large population and may offer an alternative to oral NSAID therapy for OA of the knee or hand, particularly for patients at increased risk for serious systemic AEs. Larger head-to-head, long-term, multicenter trials would be beneficial to further evaluate safety data comparing both topical and oral NSAIDs.     

Selective cyclooxygenase inhibition: its role in pain and anaesthesia.

Cyclooxygenase inhibitors reduce inflammation and hyperalgesia by decreasing prostaglandin E2 production. Traditional NSAIDs (inhibiting both COX-1 and 2) though ubiquitous in peri-operative pain practice, have well-known gastrointestinal (GI), cardiovascular and other risks. This article systematically addresses the main efficacy and safety issues pertaining to NSAID and selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) use, focusing on the acute pain context, particularly post-operative pain management. NSAIDs and coxibs are of proven analgesic efficacy in post-operative pain control, and their opioid-sparing role in multimodal analgesia, leads to significantly reduced opioid related side effects. Although GI risk is regarded as less of an issue in short-term therapy, in patients with a past history of peptic ulceration who are denied NSAIDs, coxibs may be considered a suitable alternative. In the peri-operative setting, coxibs confer an additional advantage over NSAIDs by preserving the platelet thromboxane production and clotting. Cardiovascular safety has been assessed for the parenteral parecoxib and its active moiety valdecoxib, and was found to be satisfactory in major non-cardiac surgery, but increased thromboembolic complications occurred in coronary artery bypass surgery leading to contra-indication for this type of surgery. Coxibs and NSAIDs have similar renal effects and caution or avoidance is required with renal disease or reduced peri-operative renal perfusion. Coxibs may be safer in aspirin-sensitive asthmatics. Bone healing effects remain controversial, but only a few days therapy appears to be safe.     

Gastrointestinal effects of the addition of ascorbic acid to aspirin

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, have been associated with the damage to the gastrointestinal tract. One proposed mechanism of injury to the gastrointestinal mucosa by NSAIDs is oxygen radical-dependent microvascular injury. There is reasonable evidence to support the benefit of the addition of ascorbic acid, an ingredient with antioxidant properties, to moderate the adverse gastrointestinal (GI) effects of aspirin. Pharmacokinetic data have demonstrated that aspirin and ascorbic acid combination therapy can assist in mitigating the decrease in levels of ascorbic acid secondary to aspirin monotherapy. Endoscopic evaluation has demonstrated that the addition of ascorbic acid to aspirin significantly improves Lanza scores and rates of blood loss when compared to aspirin administration alone. When taken with ascorbic acid, the patient-reported tolerability of aspirin has been shown to be comparable to paracetamol and placebo. The existing body of evidence is relevant to short-term therapy with analgesic aspirin doses, and extrapolation to long-term therapy with low-dose aspirin is not appropriate. The purported benefit of an aspirin and ascorbic acid combination is a local observance and is not suspected to influence the adverse GI effects experienced as a result of systemic prostaglandin inhibition. Nevertheless, ascorbic acid may be a viable addition to the strategies employed to improve the gastrointestinal tolerability of aspirin.     

Etoricoxib in the treatment of chronic pain

For the many patients who suffer chronic pain, we seek the most effective anti-inflammatory drug with the least side-effect profile and the greatest long-term safety. Etoricoxib, a selective COX2 inhibitor, has been shown to be as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of chronic pain in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, for periods of up to one year. Data on etoricoxib efficacy in chronic low back pain is beginning to emerge. The side-effect profile of etoricoxib suggests it is well tolerated with similar adverse effects to non-selective NSAIDs. Larger studies are awaited, to see whether superior gastrointestinal tolerability can be proven. Further work will be required to show that etoricoxib is safe in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular or gastrointestinal comorbidity, and the potentially confounding role of aspirin still needs to be elucidated. However, etoricoxib shows promise as a new and effective COX2 inhibitor in clinical practice.     

Platelet release reaction and prostaglandin pathway activation in angina patients during exercise: effect of indobufen

Platelet 14C-serotonin release induced by collagen, and platelet malondialdehyde (M.D.A.) generation induced by thrombin were assessed in twenty patients with stable angina, before and after exercise with a bicycle ergometer. The patients received a single oral 200 mg dose of indobufen or placebo according to a crossover design in double-blind conditions. The M.D.A. concentration increased when exercise was carried out after placebo, whereas indobufen markedly inhibited M.D.A. production and 14C-serotonin release. These results suggest that effort may be an important factor in activation of the platelet prostaglandin pathway and that the use of antithrombotic drugs may be appropriate in patients with angina.     

The choice of selective COX-2 inhibitors

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) has been widely prescribed as a useful antifebrile or painkiller. But, gastrointestinal injury as a side effect of NSAIDs has been a big social probrem. NSAID-induced gastric damage has been shown to be induced by the inhibition of both cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and 2. Thus, selective COX-2 inhibitors are expected to induce less gastric injury and to be safe as compared to traditional NSAIDs. But in certain situations such as gastric ulcer or H. pylori-induced gastritis, selective COX-2 inhibitors may delay ulcer healing or repair processes. Previous reports have shown that COX-2 inhibitors increase cardiovascular (CV) events as compared with placebo and recent studies further suggest that all NSAIDs might also be involved in increases in CV events. Therefore, any NSAIDs must be carefully used when they are prescribed for patients with CV risks.