Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

Identification of immune patterns in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients driven by PLA2G7-positive macrophages using an integrated machine learning survival framework

Patients with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a complex and incurable lung disease with an elusive pathology, are nearly exclusive candidates for lung transplantation. Improved identification of patient subtypes can enhance early diagnosis and intervention, ultimately leading to better prognostic outcomes for patients. The goal of this study is to identify new immune patterns and biomarkers in patients. Immune subtypes in IPF patients were identified using single-sample gene set enrichment analysis, and immune subtype-related genes were explored using the weighted correlation network analysis algorithm. A machine learning integration framework was used to establish the optimal prognostic model, known as the immune-related risk score (IRS). Single-cell sequencing was conducted to investigate the major role of macrophage-derived PLA2G7 in the immune microenvironment. We assessed the stability of celecoxib in targeting PLA2G7 through molecular docking and surface plasmon resonance. IPF patients present two distinct immune subtypes, one characterized by immune activation and inflammation, and the other by immune suppression. IRS can predict the immune status and prognosis of IPF patients. Furthermore, multi-cohort analysis and single-cell sequencing analysis demonstrated the diagnostic and prognostic value of PLA2G7 derived from macrophages and its role in shaping the inflammatory immune microenvironment in IPF patients. Celecoxib could effectively and stably bind with PLA2G7. PLA2G7, as identified through IRS, demonstrates marked stability in diagnosing and predicting the prognosis of IPF patients as well as predicting their immune status. It can serve as a novel biomarker for IPF patients.

The PKA-p38MAPK-NFAT5-Organic Osmolytes Pathway in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: From Essential Player in Osmotic Homeostasis, Inflammation and Skeletal Muscle Regeneration to Therapeutic Target

In Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), the absence of dystrophin from the dystrophin-associated protein complex (DAPC) causes muscle membrane instability, which leads to myofiber necrosis, hampered regeneration, and chronic inflammation. The resulting disabled DAPC-associated cellular pathways have been described both at the molecular and the therapeutical level, with the Toll-like receptor nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells pathway (NF-ƘB), Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription proteins, and the transforming growth factor-β pathways receiving the most attention. In this review, we specifically focus on the protein kinase A/ mitogen-activated protein kinase/nuclear factor of activated T-cells 5/organic osmolytes (PKA-p38MAPK-NFAT5-organic osmolytes) pathway. This pathway plays an important role in osmotic homeostasis essential to normal cell physiology via its regulation of the influx/efflux of organic osmolytes. Besides, NFAT5 plays an essential role in cell survival under hyperosmolar conditions, in skeletal muscle regeneration, and in tissue inflammation, closely interacting with the master regulator of inflammation NF-ƘB. We describe the involvement of the PKA-p38MAPK-NFAT5-organic osmolytes pathway in DMD pathophysiology and provide a clear overview of which therapeutic molecules could be of potential benefit to DMD patients. We conclude that modulation of the PKA-p38MAPK-NFAT5-organic osmolytes pathway could be developed as supportive treatment for DMD in conjunction with genetic therapy.

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.