ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the most common oral malignant tumor, which has poor prognosis. The traditional investigative modality is invasive biopsy which is the gold standard for diagnosis. In recent years, alternative methods like non-invasive biomarkers have been studied for their potential role in early diagnosis and prognosis. Among them, microRNAs (miRNAs or miRs) are short non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression in various diseases, including OSCC. Several miRNAs are being researched as non-invasive biomarkers as well as novel therapeutic targets in the treatment of OSCC. MiR expression can be upregulated or downregulated in OSCC. Among the reported miRNAs, miR-1285 is an important miRNA found to be involved in OSCC. The aim of the current study was to quantify the levels of miR-1285 in OSCC samples and to validate their potential role as biomarkers for OSCC detection. METHODS: Sixteen samples of cancer tissue and normal tissue were evaluated from a total of 25 patients, in the study, conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The tissues were processed for H&E staining and gene expression analysis of miR-1285. The samples were collected after proper informed consent from the patients. Total RNA isolated was reverse transcribed into cDNA which was used in the gene expression analysis using qRT-PCR. RESULTS: The histopathological examination confirmed the OSCC cases and the gene expression analysis revealed that miR-1285 was significantly downregulated in OSCC tissues. Since miR-1285 showed significant difference between the OSCC and normal tissues it could be postulated as a potential biomarker and therapeutic target for OSCC. CONCLUSIONS: Further in-vitro and in-vivo studies could validate their functional role in OSCC.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of etodolac injection and diclofenac injection in patients with postoperative orthopedic pain. METHODS: This was multicentric, randomized, assessor-blind and parallel-group study. A group of 158 patients with moderate to severe pain following orthopedic surgery were randomly assigned to receive either etodolac 400 mg twice a day (n = 78) or diclofenac 75 mg thrice a day (n = 80). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome measures were pain intensity difference, sum of pain intensity differences and pain relief whereas secondary efficacy variables included maximum fall in pain intensity, number of doses of study medication consumed, number of patients who required rescue medication and overall response to therapy. RESULTS: Mean pain intensity differences assessed on 10 cm VAS were significantly better for etodolac arm compared to diclofenac arm at 4, 8, 20 and 24 hours (p < 0.05). Sum of pain intensity differences over the first 8 hours (-21.31 ± 6.26 for etodolac vs. -19.13 ± 6.98 for diclofenac; p = 0.041) and over the 24 hours (-39.83 ± 10.70 for etodolac vs. -35.25 ± 12.00 for diclofenac; p = 0.012) for the etodolac group was significantly superior than diclofenac group. Assessment of pain relief showed that etodolac injection was significantly more effective than diclofenac injection (p < 0.0001) over the 24 hour assessment period. Maximum fall in pain intensity score, number of doses of study medication consumed and patients' and investigators' overall response to the drug at the end of treatment period were also significantly superior in the etodolac arm as compared to the diclofenac arm (p < 0.05). However, the number of patients who were rescued was comparable in both the treatment arms. A change in emotional functioning of the patients was not captured in this study. Both the study medications were well tolerated with no incidence of SAE throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Etodolac can be considered as an effective alternative to traditional NSAIDS in the treatment of post operative pain.
