Article by Disease | Electrochemical Determination of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs



Electrochemical methods have been used for the determination of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) just as used in the determination of various drugs. Among voltammetric methods; differential pulse voltammetric method, square wave voltammetric method and linear sweep voltammetric method are the most commonly used ones. NSAIDs are widely used in the treatment of inflammatory conditions such as musculoskeletal disorders (rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, acute gouty arthritis) and dental pain, menstrual pain, postoperative pain and migraine. In this review, some selected recent electrochemical studies were selected related to the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug analyzes. The aim of this review is to evaluate and discuss the advantages, details and usages of electroanalytical methods in the determination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Read out more at:



EDITOR’S CHOICE – Biologics in Inflammatory and Immunomediated Arthritis – Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology

Journal:  Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology

Author(s): Michele M. Luchetti*, Devis Benfaremo, Armando Gabrielli.


Background: Biologic drugs, introduced in clinical practice almost twenty years ago, represent nowadays a prominent treatment option in patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis, such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis and Spondyloarthritis, that include ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Methods: Several compounds targeting different pathways have been marketed and approved for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis, with a significant impact on the clinical outcomes and the natural history of the diseases.

Results: There are currently seven classes of biologics that are available for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis, each inhibiting a different aspect of the immune-driven inflammatory pathway.

They include:

• Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and certolizumab pegol);

• Interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonists (anakinra);

• Interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibition (tocilizumab);

• Interleukin-12/23 (IL23) inhibition (ustekinumab);

• Interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibition (secukinumab);

• B-cell inhibition (anti-CD20, rituximab);

• T-cell costimulation inhibition (anti-CTLA-4, abatacept).

Conclusion: In this review, we will focus on the role of biologic drugs in the treatment strategies for inflammatory arthritis.

Read more here:



Article by Disease – “Distribution of Podoplanin in Synovial Tissues in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Using Biologic or Conventional Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs”




Objective: Podoplanin (PDPN) mediates tumor cell migration and invasion, which phenomena might also play a role in severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, the precise cellular distribution of PDPN and it’s relationships with inflammation was studied in RA treated with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) or conventional DMARDs (cDMARD).

Methods: PDPN+ cells were immunostained by NZ-1 mAb, and scored (3+; >50%/ area, 2+; 20%- 50%, 1+; 5%-20%, 0: <5%) in synovial tissues from RA treated with biologic DMARDs (BIO, n=20) or cDMARD (n=20) for comparison with osteoarthritis (OA, n=5), followed by cell grading of inflammation and cell-typing.

Results: Inflammatory synovitis score was 1.4 in both BIO and cDMARD, compared to only 0.2 in OA. PDPN+ cells were found in the lining layer (BIO 1.6, cDMARD 1.3, OA 0.2) and lymphoid aggregates (BIO 0.6, cDMRD 0.7, OA 0.2), and correlated with RA-inflammation in BIO- and cDMARD-groups in both area (r=0.7/0.9, r=0.6/0.7, respectively p<0.05). PDPN was expressed in CD68+ type A macrophage-like and 5B5+ type B fibroblast-like cells in the lining layer, and in IL- 17+ cells in lymphoid aggregates in RA.

Conclusion: PDPN was markedly increased in the immunologically inflamed RA synovitis, which was surgically treated due to BIO- and cDMARD-resistant RA. PDPN may have potential of a new marker of residual arthritis in local joints for inflammation-associated severe RA.

Read more:

World Arthritis Day!


Today, on the 12th of October 2016, we raise awareness about the Arthritis disease and their possible treatments. Bentham Science Publishers has various research journals dedicated to the arthritis disease researches. The most significant one is;

Pro-oxidant- Antioxidant Balance (PAB) in Rheumatoid Arthritis and its Relationship to Disease Activity

Author(s): Maryam Sahebari, Farzaneh Shakeri, Hamideh Ghodrati Azadi, Mohammad Hassan Arjmand, Majid Ghayour-Mobarhan, Mohammad Reza Parizadehand Daryoush Hamidi Alamdari.


Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that tends to be progressive and chronic. Previous studies showed that oxidative stress has a main role in pathology of RA. The aim of this study was the easy elucidation of oxidative stress through pro-oxidant-antioxidant balance (PAB) in these patients.

Method: The sera of 130 RA patients and 130 age-matched healthy subjects (HS) were collected and the PAB was measured. According to the normal value of PAB in HS, the patients were divided into two groups; patients with increased serum PAB and those with normal serum PAB values. In patients with increased PAB value, the correlation of PAB value with RA disease activity [(DAS28ESR)], biochemical parameters, and BMI were determined.

Results: Significantly higher serum PAB values were found in the whole RA group of patients (88.69±39.42 HK) in comparison to HS (53.57±25.10 HK), p 0.05. There was no significant correlation between PAB values and RA disease activity. In patients with elevated serum PAB value; serum cholesterol, triglycerides and BMI were significantly higher in comparison to patients with normal values.

Conclusion: The PAB test can show the oxidative stress in RA patients. Further research should be done to determine the potency of the PAB assay as a tool for monitoring adverse effect of oxidative stress in RA, as well as the effect of antioxidant therapies in the outcomes.

Download it from here:

Current Rheumatology Reviews, 11(1): 28-33.

US Guided Treat-to-Target Approach in Early RA: Implications for Uncoupling of Disease Activity and Structural Joint Damage

Author(s): Yasser El Miedany, Maha El Gaafary, Ihab Ahmed, Sally Youssef and Annie Nasr.


Objective: To assess the relationship between disease activity, measured by DAS28, and radiographic progression, using X-Ray and US as tools to evaluate structural joint damage and residual inflammation, in early RA patients.

Methods: Changes from baseline to week 52 in clinical variables and measures of radiographic progression were compared between early RA patients who received anti-TNF biologic therapy (192 patients), and those who received synthetic DMARD therapy (288 patients). Patients were stratified into: in remission, low (LDA), moderate (MDA) and high (HDA) disease activity at 52-weeks of treatment according to DAS-28 score. Radiographic progression was assessed both at baseline and at 52-weeks using modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS). In addition, US scores for number of erosions, synovial hypertrophy and vascularity were recorded.

Results: Whilst there was no significant radiologic progression in the patients who achieved remission, whether treated with synthetic DMARD or biologic therapy; on the other hand, there was a steady increase of joint damage in those who did not achieve remission, mainly in those treated with synthetic DMARD and in favor of the biologic therapy. On comparing the MSS scores at 52-weeks, the biologic therapy cohort who showed LDA (DAS-28: 2.6-3.1), MDA (DAS-28 score > 3.2-5.1) and HDA (>5.1) had significantly (p< 0.001) less number of erosions and joint space narrowing (P< 0.001) as well as US-GS and US-PD scores in comparison to the synthetic DMARD therapy cohort. X-Ray and US parameters showed a discriminating value regarding joint damage particularly in the patients who did not achieve remission, with US parameter showing accurate 95% CI estimate.

Conclusion: Using US as a sensitive tool for joint affection assessment, the combination of biologic and DMARDs therapies retards joint damage, independently of its effects on disease activity, contrasting synthetic DMARDs monotherapy.

Free to download:

Current Rheumatology Reviews, 11(1): 18-27.

%d bloggers like this: