Intravenous flurbiprofen axetil enhances analgesic effect of opioids in patients with refractory cancer pain by increasing plasma ß-endorphin.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to investigate the analgesic effect of a combination of intravenous flurbiprofen axetil and opioids, and evaluate the relationship between refractory pain relief and plasma ß-endorphin levels in cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 cancer patients was randomly divided into two groups, 60 patients took orally morphine sulfate sustained-release tablets in group A, and another 60 patients receiving the combination treatment of intravenous flurbiprofen axetil and opioid drugs in group B. After 7 days, pain relief, quality of life improvement and side effects were evaluated. Furthermore, plasma ß-endorphin levels were measured by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS: With the combination treatment of intravenous intravenous flurbiprofen axetil and opioids, the total effective rate of pain relief rose to 91.4%, as compared to 82.1% when morphine sulfate sustained-release tablet was used alone. Compared with that of group A, the analgesic effect increased in group B (p=0.031). Moreover, satisfactory pain relief was associated with a significant increase in plasma ß-endorphin levels. After the treatment, plasma ß-endorphin level in group B was 62.4±13.5 pg/ml, which was higher than that in group A (45.8±11.2 pg/ml) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the combination of intravenous flurbiprofen axetil and opioids can enhance the analgesic effect of opioid drugs by increasing plasma ß-endorphin levels, which would offer a selected and reliable strategy for refractory cancer pain treatment.

[Efficacy of NO regimen and NP regimen on advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized trial].

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Oxaliplatin (LOHP) is an effective drug in treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mild toxicities to gastrointestinal tract, kidney, and bone marrow. Cisplatin (DDP) plus vinorelbine (NVB) constitute the first-line regimen (NP regimen) for NSCLC. This study was to compare the short-term response, long-term outcome, and adverse events between advanced NSCLC patients received NO regimen (LOHP plus NVB) and NP regimen. METHODS: A total of 90 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized into NO group (58 patients, 25 mg/m(2) of NVB, day 1 and day 8; 130 mg/m(2) of LOHP, day 1) and NP group (32 patients, 25 mg/m(2) of NVB, day 1 and day 8; 50 mg/m(2) of DDP, day 2 and day 3). The short-term response, long-term outcome, adverse events, and survival status of the 2 groups were observed. RESULTS: The response rates were 33.33% in NO group, and 35.48% in NP group, but no significant difference was detected between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The clinical benefit response rate was significantly higher in NO group than in NP group (80.70% vs. 64.52%, P < 0.05). The median time to progression (TTP) was 17 weeks in NO group, and 15 weeks in NP group; the median time of remission was 21 weeks in NO group, and 19 weeks in NP group; the median survival time was 39 weeks in NO group, and 37 weeks in NP group; the 1-year survival rate was 37.93% in NO group, and 31.25% in NP group. No significant differences were detected between the 2 groups. The incidence rates of phlebitis and grade I-II peripheral neuritis were significantly higher in NO group than in NP group (77.59% vs. 50.00%, P<0.01; 43.10% vs. 15.63%, P<0.01). The incidence rate of grade III-IV nausea/vomiting was significantly higher in NP group than in NO group (31.25% vs. 3.45%, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of NO regimen on advanced NSCLC is similar to that of NP regimen, but the clinical benefit response rate is higher in NO group than in NP group. In short, NO regimen may be recommended as the first-line chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC.

[Prospective randomized study of HMVP, MVP, and HVP regimens in treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer].

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is hyposensitive to the normal first and second-line chemotherapy regimens. Camptothecin derivative is becoming a hot point in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. The objective of this article was to evaluate the response, toxicity, and survival time of HMVP, MVP, and HVP regimens (detail in below) in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. METHODS: A total of 134 cases with advanced NSCLC was randomized into three groups: HMVP group [46 patients, hydroxycamptothecin (HCPT) 12 mg/m(2) from d1 to d5, mitomycin C (MMC) 6 mg/m(2) d1, vindesine (VDS) 2.5-3 mg/m(2) d1 and d8, cisplatin (DDP) 50 mg/m(2) d2 and d3], MVP group (44 patients, MMC, VDS and DDP were the same as HMVP group) and HVP group (44 patients, HCPT, VDS, DDP were the same as HMVP group). RESULTS: The response rates were 39.54% (17/43), 35.57% (15/42), and 26.19% (11/42) in HMVP, MVP, and HVP groups, respectively; no significant difference was detected among the three groups (P >0.05). No significant difference was detected in the median time of remission, median survival time, and 1-, 2-year survival rates among the three groups. Moreover, no significant difference was detected in grade III-IV leukopenia, grade III-IV thrombocytopenia, grade III-IV nausea and vomiting and grade III-IV constipation among the three groups. CONCLUSION: The response rate of MVP regimen is slightly lower than that of HMVP regimen, but HMVP regimen do not show obvious superiority. It may increase toxicities such as leukopenia, nausea/vomiting, and constipation. The response rate of HVP regimen is slightly lower than that of MVP regimen.