INTRODUCTION: Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitors are attractive candidates for treatment of ankle sprain because of their efficacy as anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents and their overall safety, including lack of effect on platelet aggregation. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib compared with diclofenac slow release (SR) in the treatment of acute ankle sprain in an Asian population.
METHODS: In this seven-day, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group trial, 370 patients with first- or second-degree ankle sprain occurring at or less than 48 hours prior to the first dose of study medication were randomised to receive celecoxib 200 mg bid (189 patients) after a 400 mg loading dose or diclofenac SR 75 mg bid (181 patients). Patients were required to demonstrate moderate to severe ankle pain on weight bearing (45 mm or greater on a 100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS]) at baseline. The primary efficacy end point was the patient's assessment of ankle pain (VAS on full weight bearing) on day 4.
RESULTS: Celecoxib was as effective as diclofenac SR in improving the signs and symptoms of ankle sprain. At day 4, mean VAS scores for celecoxib and diclofenac SR had decreased to 28 mm and 30 mm, respectively. Treatment differences were not statistically significant. Incidence of upper gastrointestinal adverse events was low in both treatment groups (0.5 percent versus 2.2 percent for celecoxib and diclofenac SR, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Celecoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor, is as effective as diclofenac SR in treating ankle sprains. With its platelet-sparing properties, celecoxib may offer an advantage over diclofenac SR in managing musculoskeletal injuries.
Ruxolitinib is the first janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2 inhibitor that was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agency for the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms. The drug targets the JAK/STAT signalling pathway, which is critical in regulating the gliogenesis process during nervous system development. In the study, we assessed the effect of non-maternal toxic dosages of ruxolitinib (0-30 mg/kg/day between E7.5-E20.5) on the brain of the developing mouse embryos. While the pregnant mice did not show any apparent adverse effects, the Gfap protein marker for glial cells and S100β mRNA marker for astrocytes were reduced in the postnatal day (P) 1.5 pups' brains. Gfap expression and Gfap+ cells were also suppressed in the differentiating neurospheres culture treated with ruxolitinib. Compared to the control group, adult mice treated with ruxolitinib prenatally showed no changes in motor coordination, locomotor function, and recognition memory. However, increased explorative behaviour within an open field and improved spatial learning and long-term memory retention were observed in the treated group. We demonstrated transplacental effects of ruxolitinib on astrogenesis, suggesting the potential use of ruxolitinib to revert pathological conditions caused by gliogenic-shift in early brain development such as Down and Noonan syndromes.
INTRODUCTION: Ruxolitinib is the first approved drug for treatment of myelofibrosis, but its impact of outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is unknown.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reported on 159 myelofibrosis patients (pts) with a median age of 59 years (r: 28-74) who received reduced intensity ASCT between 2000 and 2015 in eight German centers from related (n = 23), matched (n = 86) or mismatched (n = 50) unrelated donors. Forty-six (29%) patients received ruxolitinib at any time point prior to ASCT. The median daily dose of ruxolitinib was 30 mg (range 10-40 mg) and the median duration of treatment was 4.9 months (range 0.4-39.1 months).
RESULTS: Primary graft failure was seen in 2 pts (4%) in the ruxolitinib and 3 (2%) in the non-ruxolitinib group. Engraftment and incidence of acute GVHD grade II to IV and III/IV did not differ between groups (37% vs 39% and 19% vs 28%, respectively), nor did the non-relapse mortality at 2 years (23% vs 23%). A trend for lower risk of relapse was seen in the ruxolitinib group (9% vs 17%, P = .2), resulting in a similar 2 year DFS and OS (68% vs 60% and 73% vs 70%, respectively). No difference in any outcome variable could be seen between ruxolitinib responders and those who failed or lost response to ruxolitinib.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ruxolitinib pretreatment in myelofibrosis patient does not negatively influence outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation.
Study site: 8 health clinics in Germany