In this open-label, randomised, crossover trial, significantly more patients attained faster 'meaningful' pain relief with INFS than OTFC, and more patients preferred INFS to OTFC.

The analgesic efficacy and safety of dexketoprofen trometamol (the active enantiomer of the racemic compound ketoprofen) (25mg q.i.d.) vs. ketorolac (10mg q.i.d.) was assessed in 115 patients with bone cancer pain included in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study. A level of >/=40 mm on the 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and >/=10 in the pain rating index were required for inclusion. At the end of treatment on day 7 (+1 day), mean values of VAS were 32+/-24 mm for dexketoprofen and 40+/-30 mm for ketorolac (P=0.12) but the pain rating index was significantly lower in patients given dexketoprofen (8.5+/-2.3 vs. 9.7+/-2.9, P=0.04). Moreover, most of the patients reached a pain intensity difference from baseline >/=20 mm (75% of patients for dexketoprofen and 65% of patients for ketorolac). Around half of patients in both treatments had a pain intensity <30 mm on VAS at the end of treatment (55% for dexketoprofen and 47% for ketorolac). In the overall assessment of efficacy, a higher percentage of both patients and physicians rated dexketoprofen as 'quite effective' or 'very effective' compared to ketorolac. The percentage of patients withdrawn from the study for any reason as well as for insufficient therapeutic effect or due to adverse events was lower in the dexketoprofen group than in the ketorolac group. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients given dexketoprofen and in 24% given ketorolac. Serious adverse events occurred in 3.5% of patients from both groups but only one case of gastrointestinal hemorrhage was considered related to ketorolac. We conclude that dexketoprofen trometamol 25 mg q.i.d. oral route is a good analgesic therapy in the treatment of bone cancer pain, comparable to ketorolac 10 mg q.i.d., with a good tolerability profile.

The triple-nucleoside regimen of ABC/3TC/ZDV is a reasonable option for ART-naive patients with a pVL <100,000 copies/mL in whom, for any reason, preferred regimens are not advisable, even in patients with a baseline CD4 cell count <100 cells/mm.

No abstract

Dispersive magnetic micro-solid phase extraction (DM-μ-SPE) with in situ growth of Fe3O4 NPs is described for Cd determination by ETAAS.