Gastrointestinal-Sparing Effects of Novel NSAIDs in Rats with Compromised Mucosal Defence

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are among the most commonly used prescription and over-the-counter medications, but they often produce significant gastrointestinal ulceration and bleeding, particularly in elderly patients and patients with certain co-morbidities. Novel anti-inflammatory drugs are seldom tested in animal models that mimic the high risk human users, leading to an underestimate of the true toxicity of the drugs. In the present study we examined the effects of two novel NSAIDs and two commonly used NSAIDs in models in which mucosal defence was expected to be impaired. Naproxen, celecoxib, ATB-346 (a hydrogen sulfide- and naproxen-releasing compound) and NCX 429 (a nitric oxide- and naproxen-releasing compound) were evaluated in healthy, arthritic, obese, and hypertensive rats and in rats of advanced age (19 months) and rats co-administered low-dose aspirin and/or omeprazole. In all models except hypertension, greater gastric and/or intestinal damage was observed when naproxen was administered in these models than in healthy rats. Celecoxib-induced damage was significantly increased when co-administered with low-dose aspirin and/or omeprazole. In contrast, ATB-346 and NCX 429, when tested at doses that were as effective as naproxen and celecoxib in reducing inflammation and inhibiting cyclooxygenase activity, did not produce significant gastric or intestinal damage in any of the models. These results demonstrate that animal models of human co-morbidities display the same increased susceptibility to NSAID-induced gastrointestinal damage as observed in humans. Moreover, two novel NSAIDs that release mediators of mucosal defence (hydrogen sulfide and nitric oxide) do not induce significant gastrointestinal damage in these models of impaired mucosal defence

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Effects of NSAIDs in rats with adjuvant arthritis.

<p>Despite comparable suppression of paw swelling (panel A), gastric prostaglandin synthesis (panel B) and whole blood thromboxane synthesis (panel C), ATB-346 and NCX 429 did not cause significant gastric (panel D) or intestinal (panel E) damage. Celecoxib also did not cause significant GI damage. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 versus the naproxen-treated group. n = 8 per group.</p

Increased naproxen-induced small intestinal damage in obese versus lean rats.

<p>Neither lean nor obese rats developed intestinal damage when given ATB-346. **p<0.01 versus the corresponding vehicle- and ATB-346-treated rats. n = 6 rats per group.</p

Co-administration of naproxen or celecoxib with omeprazole and/or low-dose aspirin results in marked exacerbation of small intestinal damage.

<p>In contrast, rats given a naproxen derivative (ATB-346 or NCX 429) did not develop significant intestinal injury when given alone or in combination with omeprazole, low-dose aspirin, or both. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 versus the corresponding group treated with NSAID alone (n≥6 per group). Aspirin and omeprazole, alone or given together, did not elicit significant intestinal damage.</p

Serum and biliary levels of naproxen are significantly reduced in rats given a naproxen derivative (ATB-346 or NCX 429) as compared to the levels observed in rats given an equimolar dose of naproxen itself.

<p>The test drugs were administered twice-daily for 2 days. *p<0.05, **p<0001 versus the naproxen-treated group. n = 4 per group.</p

Older (19 months of age) rats develop extensive gastric damage when given naproxen, but not when given equimolar doses of a hydrogen sulfide-releasing naproxen derivative (ATB-346) or a nitric oxide-releasing naproxen derivative (NCX 429).

<p>***p<0.001 versus the vehicle-treated group. n =  6 rats per group.</p

NSAID enteropathy and bacteria: a complicated relationship

The clinical significance of small intestinal damage caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remains under-appreciated. It occurs with greater frequency than the damage caused by these drugs in the upper gastrointestinal tract, but is much more difficult to diagnose and treat. Although the pathogenesis of NSAID enteropathy remains incompletely understood, it is clear that bacteria, bile, and the enterohepatic circulation of NSAIDs are all important factors. However, they are also interrelated with one another. Bacterial enzymes can affect the cytotoxicity of bile and are essential for enterohepatic circulation of NSAIDs. Gram-negative bacteria appear to be particularly important in the pathogenesis of NSAID enteropathy, possibly through release of endotoxin. Inhibitors of gastric acid secretion significantly aggravate NSAID enteropathy, and this effect is due to significant changes in the intestinal microbiome. Treatment with antibiotics can, in some circumstances, reduce the severity of NSAID enteropathy, but published results are inconsistent. Specific antibiotic-induced changes in the microbiota have not been causally linked to prevention of intestinal damage. Treatment with probiotics, particularly Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Faecalibacteriaum prausnitzii, has shown promising effects in animal models. Our studies suggest that these beneficial effects are due to colonization by the bacteria, rather than to products released by the bacteria