4.5 Article

Synthesis, Anti-Inflammatory Activity, and COX-1/2 Inhibition Profile of Some Novel Non-Acidic Polysubstituted Pyrazoles and Pyrano[2,3-c]pyrazoles

期刊

ARCHIV DER PHARMAZIE
卷 350, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/ardp.201700025

关键词

Anti-inflammatory activity; COX-1; COX-2; Pyrazole; Selective COX-2 inhibitors

资金

  1. SABIC
  2. Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah [S-17-416-37]
  3. DSR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The synthesis and evaluation of the anti-inflammatory activity of some structure hybrids comprising basically the 5-hydroxy-3-methyl-1-phenyl-4-substituted-1H-pyrazole scaffold directly linked to a variety of heterocycles and functionalities, or annulated as pyrano[2,3-c]pyrazoles, is described. According to the in vivo results and a comprehensive structure-activity relationship study, five analogs (5, 10, 17, 19, and 27) displayed remarkable anti-inflammatory profiles showing distinctive % protection and ED50 values, especially 10 and 27 (ED50 35.7 and 38.7mol/kg, respectively) which were nearly equiactive to celecoxib (ED50 32.1mol/kg). Compounds 10, 17, and 27 exhibited distinctive COX-2 inhibition with a noticeable COX-2 selectivity (SI values 7.83, 6.87, and 7.16, respectively), close to that of celecoxib (SI 8.68). Additionally, 5, 10, 17, 19, and 27 proved to be gastrointestinal tract safe (0-20% ulceration) and non-toxic, being well tolerated by the experimental animals up to 250mg/kg orally and 80mg/kg parenterally. Collectively, the in vivo ED50 values for the most potent five derivatives agree with their in vitro COX-2 selectivity indices, suggesting their usefulness as selective anti-inflammatory COX-2 inhibitors. The bipyrazole 10 and the pyranopyrazole 27 could be considered as the most active members in this study, being nearly equiactive to celecoxib, besides their obvious selective COX-2 inhibition, high safety margin, and predicted pharmacokinetic (ADME-T) suitability for oral use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据