Antinociceptive interaction between opioids and medetomidine: systemic additivity and spinal synergy

The antinociceptive interaction on the tail flick (TF) and hot plate (HP) tests between opioid analgesics and medetomidine after intravenous (iv) or intrathecal administration were examined by isobolographic analysis. Male Sprague-Dawley rats received fixed ratios of medetomidine to morphine, fentanyl, and meperidine of 1:10 and 1:30, 10:1, and 1:3, respectively, by iv administration or 10:1, 3:1 and 10:1, and 1:3 by intrathecal administration, respectively. Data were expressed as the percentage maximal possible effect (%MPE). The A50 (dose producing 50% MPE) for each drug or drug combination was determined from the dose-response curve. Isobolographic analysis revealed that the effect of medetomidine combined with fentanyl, morphine, or meperidine was additive after iv administration. The intrathecal administration of combinations of medetomidine with the opioids produced a synergistic antinociceptive effect in the TF but not HP test. These data confirmed that the interaction between medetomidine and opioids in producing antinociception may be additive or synergistic, depending on the route of administration, drug ratio administered, and level of processing of the nociceptive input (i.e., spinal vs. supraspinal). Moreover, these results were consistent with a spinal role for alpha-2 adrenoceptors in mediating antinociception. The authors suggest that the interaction between the opioid and alpha-2 adrenergic receptors occurs within the spinal cord.     

Antinociceptive Interaction of Intrathecal alpha sub 2 -adrenergic Agonists, Tizanidine and Clonidine, with Lidocaine in Rats

Background: The intrathecal alpha2 -adrenergic agonist, clonidine, has been shown to have considerable antinociceptive effect, although clonidine causes hypotension and bradycardia The combination of intrathecal clonidine and local anesthetics enhances analgesic effects, whereas the combination may cause marked hypotension and motor blockade, which may limit the clinical application of the combination. Tizanidine, another alpha2 -adrenergic agonist, has also provided antinociception without producing pronounced hemodynamic changes. This study was designed to evaluate the antinociceptive and hemodynamic interactions of tizanidine and clonidine with lidocaine.

Methods: Male Sprague Dawley rats were chronically implanted with lumbar intrathecal catheters. The tail-flick test was used to assess the thermal nociceptive threshold. The ability of intrathecal tizanidine, clonidine, lidocaine, or the combinations of alpha2 -adrenergic agonist and lidocaine to alter the tail-flick latency was examined. To characterize the antinociceptive interaction, the isobolographic analysis was applied. Additionally, the motor function, blood pressure and heart rate after intrathecal administration of drugs and combinations were also monitored.

Results: Intrathecal tizanidine, clonidine, or the combinations increased the tail-flick latency in dose- and time-dependent fashion without affecting motor function. The order potencies (dose producing a 50% of peak effect, in micro gram) of tizanidine and clonidine were 1.8 and 0.75, respectively. With isobolographic analysis, tizanidine with lidocaine and clonidine with lidocaine showed significantly synergistic antinociceptive interaction. Potency ratio analysis and fractional analysis also confirmed the synergistic interaction. At the doses in the combinations showing comparable antinociception, tizanidine with lidocaine, unlike clonidine with lidocaine, did not affect motor function or blood pressure.     

Dextromethorphan potentiates morphine antinociception at the spinal level in rats

PURPOSE: Morphine is an effective analgesic, but adverse effects limit its clinical use in higher doses. The non-opioid antitussive, dextromethorphan (DM), can potentiate the analgesic effect of morphine and decrease the dose of morphine in acute postoperative pain, but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. We previously observed that DM increases the serum concentration of morphine in rats. Therefore, we investigated the effects of drugs administered at the spinal level to exclude possible pharmacokinetic interactions. As DM has widespread binding sites in the central nervous system [such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, sigma receptors and alpha(3)ss(4) nicotinic receptors], we investigated whether the potentiation of morphine antinociception by DM at the spinal level is related to NMDA receptors. METHODS: We used MK-801 as a tool to block the NMDA channel first, and then studied the interaction between intrathecal (i.t.) morphine and DM. The tail-flick test was used to examine the antinociceptive effects of different combinations of morphine and other drugs in rats. RESULTS: DM (2-20 microg) or MK-801 (5-15 microg) showed no significant antinociceptive effect by themselves. The antinociceptive effect of morphine (0.5 microg, i.t.) was significantly enhanced by DM and reached the maximal potentiation (43.7%-50.4%) at doses of 2 to 10 microg. Pretreatment with MK-801 (5 or 10 microg, i.t.) significantly potentiated morphine antinociception by 49.9% or 38.7%, respectively. When rats were pretreated with MK-801, DM could not further enhance morphine antinociception (45.7% vs 50.5% and 43.3%). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that spinal NMDA receptors play an important role in the effect of DM to potentiate morphine antinociception.     

Local anesthetics potentiate spinal morphine antinociception

Some investigators have postulated a synergistic analgesic effect of local anesthetic agents and opiates when given intrathecally or epidurally, but little objective evidence has been presented to quantitate such an effect. A study was therefore undertaken to compare in mice the antinociceptive effects of intrathecal injections of mixtures of morphine with bupivacaine or lidocaine with the effects of these agents when administered alone. The antinociceptive effects (tail-flick and hotp-late tests) of morphine (0.1-1.6 micrograms) with either bupivacaine, 25 micrograms, or lidocaine, 200 micrograms, were significantly greater than the effects of morphine or the local anesthetics when administered alone. When morphine was administered with the local anesthetics, the intensity and the duration of antinociception were greater, although the time courses of the effects resembled that of morphine administered alone. An enhanced effect was also observed when combinations of local anesthetics and low doses of morphine were used that by themselves had no or little effect. The addition of morphine did not affect the motor block produced by the local anesthetics. The results indicate a potentiating effect of local anesthetics on spinal morphine antinociception, a finding that may have important clinical implications.     

An analysis of drug interaction between morphine and neostigmine in rats with nerve-ligation injury

Intrathecal neostigmine reverses mechanical allodynia in humans and animals. The efficacy of morphine in a neuropathic pain state is still controversial. This study examines the antiallodynic interaction between morphine and neostigmine in a rat model of neuropathic pain. Rats were prepared with tight ligation of left L5-6 (fifth and sixth lumbar) spinal nerves and chronic intrathecal catheter implantation. Mechanical allodynia was measured by using application of von Frey hairs to the left hindpaw. Morphine (1, 3, 10, and 30 microg) and neostigmine (0.3, 1, 3, and 10 microg) were administered intrathecally to obtain the dose-response curves and the 50% effective dose (ED(50)) for each drug. ED(50) values and fractions of the ED(50) values (1/2, 1/4, and 1/8) were administered intrathecally in an equal dose ratio to establish the ED(50). Isobolographic and fractional analyses for the drug interaction were performed. Intrathecal morphine produced a moderate antagonism of the tactile allodynia. A morphine-neostigmine combination produced a dose-dependent increase in withdrawal threshold of the lesioned hind paw with reduced side effects. Both analyses revealed a synergistic interaction after the coadministration of morphine and neostigmine. These experiments suggest that the antiallodynic action of a morphine-neostigmine combination is synergistic at the spinal level. IMPLICATIONS: This study indicates that, by using both isobolographic and fractional analyses, the antiallodynic effect of intrathecal morphine and neostigmine is synergistic when coadministered intrathecally. In a rat model of neuropathic pain, the intrathecal morphine produced a moderate antagonism on touch-evoked allodynia at the spinal level.     

An isobolographic analysis of the adrenergic modulation of diclofenac antinociception

We evaluated the noradrenergic modulation of the antinociceptive activity of diclofenac in mice using the acetic acid writhing test. Dose-response curves were obtained for the antinociceptive effect of diclofenac, phenylephrine, clonidine, desipramine, prazosin, and yohimbine administered both systemically and intrathecally, and ED(50)s were calculated. Noradrenergic modulation was evaluated by performing an isobolographic analysis of the systemic or intrathecal coadministration of fixed-ratio combinations of diclofenac with each adrenergic drug. The systemic, but not the intrathecal, combinations of diclofenac with phenylephrine or clonidine showed supraadditivity, suggesting that the activation of alpha(1) and alpha(2) adrenoceptors interfered with the nociceptive transmission at spinal and supraspinal levels. Supraadditive effects were not demonstrated for the intrathecal injection of diclofenac combined with phenylephrine, clonidine and a selective norepinephrine uptake inhibitor (desipramine) or adrenergic antagonists. We conclude that interaction between adrenoceptors and diclofenac can modulate antinociception by activating common or different mechanisms. Diclofenac has an antinociceptive activity that, in addition to cyclooxygenase inhibition, can be modulated by additive and supraadditive interactions with adrenergic drugs. IMPLICATIONS: Diclofenac analgesia in mice can be modulated by interaction with adrenergic drugs. The systemic but not the intrathecal administration of phenylephrine and clonidine produced supraadditive interactions. For desipramine, prazosin, and yohimbine, supraadditive interactions were not statistically demonstrated. The coadministration of drugs inducing supraadditive effects could be clinically relevant for the treatment of chronic pain because of reduction of doses and side effects.     

The effects of intrathecal morphine encapsulated in L- and D-dipalmitoylphosphatidyl choline liposomes on acute nociception in rats

Liposomes can serve as a sustained-release carrier system, permitting the spinal delivery of large opioid doses restricting the dose for acute systemic uptake. We evaluated the antinociceptive effects of morphine encapsulated in liposomes of two isomeric phospholipids, L-dipalmitoylphosphatidyl choline (L-DPPC) and D-dipalmitoylphosphatidyl choline (D-DPPC), in comparison with morphine in saline. Sprague-Dawley rats with chronic lumbar intrathecal catheters were tested for their acute nociceptive response using a hindpaw thermal escape test. Their general behavior, motor function, pinna reflex, and corneal reflex were also examined. The duration of antinociception was longer in both liposomal morphine groups than in the free morphine group. The peak antinociceptive effects were observed within 30 min after intrathecal morphine, L-DPPC or D-DPPC morphine injection. The rank order of the area under the effect-time curve for antinociception was L-DPPC morphine > D-DPPC morphine > morphine. The 50% effective dose was: 2.7 microg (morphine), 4.6 microg (L-DPPC morphine), and 6.4 microg (D-DPPC morphine). D-DPPC morphine had less side effects for a given antinociceptive AUC than morphine. In conclusion, L-DPPC and D-DPPC liposome encapsulation of morphine prolonged the antinociceptive effect on acute thermal stimulation and could decrease side effects, compared with morphine alone. Implications: Two isomers of liposome (L-dipalmitoylphosphatidyl choline and D-dipalmitoylphosphatidyl choline) encapsulation of morphine prolonged the analgesic effect on acute thermal-induced pain when administered intrathecally and could decrease side effects, compared with morphine alone.     

Spinal endogenous acetylcholine contributes to the analgesic effect of systemic morphine in rats

BACKGROUND: Systemic morphine is known to cause increased release of acetyicholine in the spinal cord. Intrathecal injection of the cholinergic receptor agonists or acetyicholinesterase inhibitors produces antinociception in both animals and humans. In the present study, we explored the functional importance of spinal endogenous acetylcholine in the analgesic action produced by intravenous morphine. METHODS: Rats were implanted with intravenous and intrathecal catheters. The antinociceptive effect of morphine was determined by the paw-withdrawal latency in response to a radiant heat stimulus after intrathecal treatment with atropine (a muscarinic receptor antagonist), mecamylamine (a nicotinic receptor antagonist), or cholinergic neurotoxins (ethylcholine mustard aziridinium ion [AF64A] and hemicholinium-3). RESULTS: Intravenous injection of 2.5 mg/kg morphine increased significantly the paw-withdrawal latency. Intrathecal pretreatment with 30 microg atropine (n = 7) or 50 microg mecamylamine (n = 6) both attenuated significantly the antinociceptive effect of morphine. The inhibitory effect of atropine on the effect of morphine was greater than that of mecamylanilne. Furthermore, the antinociceptive effect of morphine was significantly reduced in rats pretreated with intrathecal AF64A (n = 7) or hemicholinium-3 (n = 6) to inhibit the high-affinity choline transporter and acetylcholine synthesis. We found that intrathecal AF64A reduced significantly the [3H]hemicholinium-3 binding sites but did not affect its affinity in the dorsal spinal cord. CONCLUSIONS: The data in the current study indicate that spinal endogenous acetylcholine plays an important role in mediating the analgesic effect of systemic morphine through both muscarinic and nicotinic receptors.     

Spinal Antinociceptive Action of Na+-K+ Pump Inhibitor Ouabain and Its Interaction with Morphine and Lidocaine in Rats

Background: The Na+,K+-adenosine triphosphatase is a ubiquitous enzyme system that maintains the ion gradient across the plasma membrane of a variety of cell types, including cells in the central nervous system. We investigated the antinociceptive effect of intrathecally administered ouabain and examined its potential interaction with spinal morphine and lidocaine.

Methods: Using rats chronically implanted with lumbar intrathecal catheters, the ability of intrathecally administered ouabain, morphine, and lidocaine and of mixtures of ouabain-morphine and ouabain-lidocaine to alter tail-flick latency was examined. To characterize any interactions, isobolographic analysis was performed. The effects of pretreatment with intrathecally administered atropine or naloxone also were tested.

Results: Intrathecally administered ouabain (0.1-5.0 [micro sign]g), morphine (0.2-10.0 [micro sign]g), and lidocaine (25-300 [micro sign]g) given alone produced significant dose- and time-dependent antinociception, but systemic administration of ouabain did not produce such an effect. The median effective dose (ED50) values for intrathecally administered ouabain, morphine, and lidocaine were 2.3, 5.0, and 227.0 [micro sign]g, respectively. Isobolographic analysis exhibited a synergistic interaction after the coadministration of ouabain and morphine. With ouabain and lidocaine, there was no such evidence of synergism. Intrathecally administered atropine, but not naloxone, completely blocked the antinociceptive effect of ouabain and attenuated its interaction with spinally administered morphine.     

Differential effects of intrathecal midazolam on morphine-induced antinociception in the rat: role of spinal opioid receptors.

The antinociceptive effects of an intrathecally administered benzodiazepine agonist midazolam, alone and in combination with morphine, were examined in the rat by using the tail-flick test. The duration of antinociceptive effect produced by midazolam was significantly less (P less than 0.05) than that produced by morphine. Low doses of midazolam (10 micrograms) and morphine (10 micrograms) produced a synergistic effect in prolonging antinociceptive effect. However, at higher doses (20 or 30 micrograms), these drugs reduced the extent of antinociception produced by each other. Naloxone administration prevented antinociception produced by these drugs, indicating interactions between midazolam and opioid receptors. Midazolam had dual effects on the binding of opioid ligands to the spinal opioid receptors. At low dose, it potentiated the displacement of [3H]naloxone by morphine. At higher doses, midazolam inhibited the binding of opioid ligands to their spinal receptors in the following order: kappa greater than delta greater than mu. These results indicate that differential antinociceptive effects of midazolam on morphine-induced antinociception involve interaction of this benzodiazepine with spinal opioid receptors.     

Interaction of intrathecal morphine with bupivacaine and lidocaine in the rat.

The interaction in the rat between intrathecal morphine and local anesthetics (bupivacaine and lidocaine) on nociception (52.5 degrees C hot plate and paw pressure), motor function, and autonomic function (blood pressure [BP] and heart rate [HR]) was examined over a range of doses for both morphine and the local anesthetics. High doses of intrathecal bupivacaine (75 micrograms) or lidocaine (500 micrograms) produced motor block and hypotension (150 micrograms bupivacaine) lasting approximately 15 and 7 min, respectively, whereas low doses of intrathecal bupivacaine (25 micrograms) and lidocaine (100 micrograms) produced only a transient motor weakness lasting 2 min or less. Alone, neither agent altered the hot plate or paw pressure response at doses, or at times, where the agents had no effect upon motor function. In contrast, at the low dose of either local anesthetic, after the resolution of the transient motor weakness, these doses resulted in a significant leftward shift in the dose-response curves for intrathecal morphine on both the hot plate and paw pressure, as measured by the maximum observed peak effect and by the area under the time-effect curve. Thus, for example, the morphine ED50 (95% confidence intervals) for morphine/saline was 1.7 micrograms (0.7-1.9) on the hot plate and 1.1 micrograms (0.8-1.4) on the paw pressure versus for morphine/bupivacaine (25 micrograms): hot plate 0.25 micrograms (0.21-0.42) and paw pressure 0.28 micrograms (0.2-0.4). Intrathecal morphine was not observed to have any effect on the dose-dependent effects of intrathecal bupivacaine on motor or autonomic blockade. Comparable results were also observed with lidocaine (bupivacaine was found to have no significant effect on spinal cord morphine clearance). We conclude that low doses of intrathecal lidocaine and bupivacaine, which alone have no antinociceptive effect, at times when motor function was clearly unimpaired, are able to significantly augment the antinociceptive activity of intrathecal morphine on the hot plate and paw pressure tests. This prominent and selective potentiation appears to occur via a non-pharmacokinetic mechanism and probably reflects upon the interaction of low concentrations of local anesthetics with systems in the spinal dorsal horn that process acute high threshold afferent input.     

Synergistic antinociceptive effect of amitriptyline and morphine in the rat orofacial formalin test

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy is often used to increase the clinical utility of analgesic agents. The coadministration of two compounds may achieve analgesia at doses lower than those required for either compound alone, leading to enhanced pain relief and reduction of adverse effects. Herein, the authors describe the effect of coadministration of morphine and amitriptyline on cutaneous orofacial inflammatory pain in rats. METHODS: Amitriptyline, morphine, or the combination of amitriptyline and morphine was administered systemically to rats, and antinociceptive effects were determined by means of the rat orofacial formalin test. Isobolographic analysis was used to define the nature of the interactions between morphine and amitriptyline. RESULTS: Amitriptyline as well as morphine produced a dose-related inhibition in the first phase and the second phase of rubbing activity. ED50 values against rubbing behavior were 14.6 mg/kg (95% confidence interval, 10.2-33.5 mg/kg) and 1.3 mg/kg (95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.7 mg/kg) for amitriptyline and morphine, respectively. Combinations of increasing fractional increments of amitriptyline and morphine ED50 doses produced a synergistic effect against rubbing behavior, as revealed by isobolographic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that systemic amitriptyline and morphine synergistically inhibit cutaneous orofacial inflammatory pain in rats.     

Synergistic Antinociceptive Interactions of Morphine and Clonidine in Rats with Nerve-ligation Injury

Background: Ligation injury of the L5/L6 nerve roots in rats produces behavioral signs representative of clinical conditions of neuropathic pain, including tactile allodynia and thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia. In this model, intrathecal morphine shows no antiallodynic activity, as well as decreased antinociceptive potency and efficacy. This study was designed to explore the antinociceptive activity of intrathecal clonidine alone or in combination with intrathecal morphine (1:3 fixed ratio) in nerve-injured rats. The aims, with this study, were to use nerve-injured animals to determine: (1) whether the antinociceptive potency and efficacy of intrathecal clonidine was altered, and (2) whether the combination of intrathecal morphine and clonidine would act synergistically to produce antinociception.

Methods: Unilateral nerve injury was produced by ligation of the L5 and L6 spinal roots of male Sprague-Dawley rats. Sham-operated rats underwent a similar surgical procedure but without nerve ligation. Morphine and clonidine were given intrathecally through implanted catheters alone or in a 1:3 fixed ratio. Nociceptive responses were measured by recording tail withdrawal latency from a 55 degrees Celsius water bath, and data were calculated as % maximal possible effect (%MPE).

Results: Morphine produced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect in both sham-operated and nerve-injured rats. The doses calculated to produce a 50 %MPE (i.e., A50) (+/- 95% confidence intervals [CI]) were 15 +/- 4.9 micro gram and 30 +/- 18 micro gram, respectively. Though morphine was able to produce a maximal response (100%) in sham-operated rats, the maximal response achieved in nerve-injured animals was only 69 +/- 21.9 %MPE. Clonidine produced a dose-dependent effect, with an A50 (+/- 95% CI) of 120 +/- 24 micro gram in sham-operated rats. In nerve-ligated rats, clonidine produced a maximal effect that reached a plateau of 55 +/- 10.9 %MPE and 49 +/- 10.2 %MPE at 100 and 200 micro gram, respectively, preventing the calculation of an A50. In sham-operated rats, a morphine-clonidine mixture produced maximal efficacy, with an A50 (+/- 95% CI) of 15 +/- 9.2 micro gram (total dose), significantly less than the theoretical additive A50 of 44 +/- 10 micro gram. In L5/L6 nerve-ligated rats, the morphine-clonidine combination produced maximal efficacy, with an A50 (+/- 95% CI) of 11 +/- 5.4 micro gram (total dose), which was significantly less than the theoretical additive A50 of 118 +/- 73 micro gram, indicating a synergistic antinociceptive interaction. The intrathecal injection of [D-Ala2, NMePhe4, Gly-ol]enkephalin (DAMGO) produced A50 values of 0.23 micro gram (range, 0.09-0.6) and 0.97 micro gram (range, 0.34-2.7) in sham-operated and ligated rats, respectively. Phentolamine (4 mg/kg, intraperitoneally) produced no antinociceptive effect alone and attenuated, rather than enhanced, the effect of morphine in both groups of rats.     

Experimental arthritis in the rat does not alter the analgesic potency of intrathecal or intraarticular morphine.

To explore further the role of inflammatory processing on peripheral opioid pharmacology, we examined whether the potency of intraarticular (i.a.) or intrathecal (i.t) morphine in tests of thermal and mechanical nociception changed during the induction of experimental arthritis in the rat. Thermal nociception by i.t. morphine (3, 10, and 50 micrograms) or i.a. morphine (100, 1000, and 3000 micrograms) was assessed by means of a modified Hargreaves box ever) 28 h. Mechanical antinociception was determined for the largest applied doses of morphine using von Frey hairs. Morphine produced dose-dependent thermal antinociception after i.t. or i.a. administration: a 50% increase in maximum antinociceptive thermal response (50% effective dose) was produced by i.t. doses of 9.7 micrograms at the start and 9.1 micrograms at the end of this 28-h observational interval, whereas after i.a. administration, 50% effective dose values were 553 micrograms at the start and 660 micrograms at the end. The largest applied dose of either i.t. or i.a. morphine produced mechanical antinociception. On Day 1, the antinociceptive effect for mechanical nociception (expressed as the area under the curve of the percentage of maximal possible effect values at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 h) was 68% for i.t. morphine 50 micrograms and 53% for i.a. morphine 3000 micrograms. Neither result differed from the corresponding area under the curve values on Day 2. Naloxone administered either i.t. or i.a. abolished the antinociceptive action of morphine given at the same site. We conclude that, although morphine has a peripheral analgesic site of action in a rat arthritis model, its potency for both i.a. and i.t. routes of administration does not change during the onset of arthritis. Implications: In this animal study, we showed that the administration of morphine modulates thermal and mechanical antinociception at central and peripheral sites in inflammatory pain.     

The non-NMDA glutamate receptor antagonist CNQX augments lidocaine antinociception through a spinal action in rats.

Non-NMDA glutamate receptor antagonists produce antinociceptive effects, but the antinociceptive interaction between non-NMDA glutamate receptor antagonists and local anesthetics has not been demonstrated. We designed this study to evaluate the antinociceptive effects of a non-NMDA glutamate receptor antagonist and its interaction with lidocaine in rats. Intrathecal catheters were implanted at the L4-5 level in rats. The tail flick (TF) and colorectal distension (CD) tests were used to assess somatic and visceral antinociceptive effects, respectively. The TF latency and CD threshold were measured before and for 180 min after the intrathecal administration of lidocaine (20-100 micrograms), 6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (CNQX) (0.4-4.0 micrograms), a combination of CNQX (0.2-0.6 microgram) and lidocaine (10-30 micrograms), or isotonic sodium chloride solution. The TF latency and CD threshold were converted to the percent maximal possible effect (%MPE). To determine synergistic interaction, isobolographic analysis was used. Lidocaine or CNQX increased %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests. The coadministration of CNQX 0.4 microgram and lidocaine 20 micrograms, which had no effect by alone, significantly increased %MPEs in the TF and CD tests for 30 min and 10 min, respectively. Isobolographic analysis revealed the synergistic antinociception of CNQX and lidocaine in the TF test. Motor impairment was not observed after that combination. We conclude that CNQX and lidocaine produce synergistic analgesia on somatic and visceral pain at the spinal level. Implications: We investigated the antinociceptive effects of 6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione and its interaction with lidocaine at the spinal level in rats. Intrathecal 6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione produced both somatic and visceral antinociception, and its coadministration with lidocaine showed synergistic antinociceptive effects.     

Antinociceptive synergy between intrathecal morphine and lidocaine during visceral and somatic nociception in the rat.

Clinical investigations have suggested a synergistic interaction between the analgesic effects of intrathecal opioids and local anesthetics; however, basic pharmacologic evidence for this observation has not been reported. Therefore, the authors have used models of visceral and somatic nociception to quantify the interaction between intrathecal morphine and lidocaine in a crossover study of 24 rats in four equal groups. Combinations of morphine and lidocaine were administered separately, corresponding to time of peak effect for each drug. Colorectal distention, as a noxious visceral stimulus, was applied to two groups while cardiovascular and visceromotor responses, respectively, were recorded. A third group received hot plate testing as a somatic nociceptive stimulus. Intrathecal morphine and lidocaine both attenuated the cardiovascular and visceromotor responses to colorectal distention and increased hot plate latencies in a dose- and time-dependent manner. With the use of isobolographic analysis, the coadministration of morphine and lidocaine demonstrated a synergistic, supraadditive interaction during visceral nociception (P less than 0.001) and somatic nociception (P less than 0.005). In a fourth group, motor function was evaluated by an inclined screen method. Intrathecal lidocaine in the dosage range tested during isobolographic analysis revealed no motor deficits. These data clearly demonstrate antinociceptive synergy between intrathecal morphine and lidocaine during visceral and somatic nociception at dosages that do not impair motor function.     

Role of spinal opioid receptors in the antinociceptive interactions between intrathecal morphine and bupivacaine.

In studies on the clinical management of pain, a combination of morphine and bupivacaine is more effective than either of them alone in producing analgesia. The present study was designed to examine the effect of bupivacaine on morphine-induced antinociception as measured by the tail-flick test in the rat. To understand the basis of this interaction, the effect of bupivacaine on the binding of opioid ligands to their spinal opioid receptors in the rat also was investigated. Intrathecal administration of 5, 20, or 50 micrograms bupivacaine significantly potentiated the antinociception produced by intrathecal administration of 10 micrograms morphine. There was more than a 10-fold increase in the area under the curve (AUC0-60 min) for morphine-induced antinociception in the presence of bupivacaine. At higher doses of morphine (20 micrograms), bupivacaine was not very effective, increased AUC0-60 min for antinociception by only about 25%, and in fact significantly decreased the total duration of morphine-induced antinociception. Radioreceptor assays done with rat spinal cord membrane preparations revealed that bupivacaine (0.1-10 nM) inhibited the binding of specific ligands to mu-receptors but increased the binding to delta- and kappa-receptors. The authors conclude that the facilitation of morphine-induced antinociception by bupivacaine may be associated with a conformational change in the spinal opioid receptors induced by bupivacaine. Although increasing the binding of morphine to kappa-opioid receptors is the most prominent effect, the binding of opioid ligands to all spinal receptors is inhibited at high doses of bupivacaine.     

Interaction between midazolam and serotonin in spinally mediated antinociception in rats

Purpose  Intrathecal administration of serotonin (5-HT) is antinociceptive through the involvement of spinal cord γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. Therefore, 5-HT would interact with the GABA agonist, midazolam, which is well known to exert spinally mediated antinociception in the spinal cord. The present study investigated the antinociceptive interaction between spinally administered 5-HT and midazolam, using two different rat nociceptive models. Methods  Sprague-Dawley rats with lumbar intrathecal catheters were tested for their thermal tail withdrawal response and paw flinches induced by formalin injection after the intrathecal administration of midazolam or 5-HT, or the midazolam/ HT combination. The effects of the combination were tested by isobolographic analysis, using the combination of each 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 of the 50% effective dose (ED50). The total fractional dose was calculated. Behavioral side effects were also examined. Results  5-HT alone and midazolam alone both showed dose-dependent antinociception in both the tail flick test and the formalin test. The ED50 of the combination was not different from the calculated additive value either in the tail flick test or in phase 2 of the formalin test, but it was significantly smaller than the calculated additive value in phase 1 of the formalin test. The total fractional dose value was 0.90 in the tail flick test, 0.093 in phase 1 of the formalin test, and 1.38 in phase 2 of the formalin test. The agitation, allodynia, or motor disturbance observed with either agent alone was not seen with the combination treatment. Conclusion  The antinociceptive effects of intrathecal midazolam and 5-HT were additive on thermal acute and inflammatory facilitated stimuli, and synergistic on inflammatory acute stimulation.     

The role of spinal opioid receptors in antinociceptive effects produced by intrathecal administration of hydromorphone and buprenorphine in the rat

The intrathecal administration of morphine has been the standard therapy to control long-term intractable pain. Recently, a panel of pain therapy experts suggested that because of the lack of efficacy or because of the side effects produced by morphine in some patients, other drugs, such as hydromorphone and buprenorphine, should be investigated for their analgesic properties. We designed this study to compare the efficacy of intrathecal hydromorphone and buprenorphine to suppress thermal nociception in male Sprague-Dawley rats. An additional objective was to understand whether hydromorphone and buprenorphine bind and act as agonists to mu-, delta-, and kappa-spinal opioid receptors. Intrathecally-administered hydromorphone and buprenorphine produced a dose- and time-dependent increase in the tail-flick response latency in rats. The 50% effective dose value for the antinociceptive effect of buprenorphine and hydromorphone were 4 and 69.5 nmol/L, respectively. Both drugs act as agonists to mu-opioid receptors, as determined by their ability to displace [(3)H]-DAMGO from the spinal opioid receptors and by the ability of an opioid receptor antagonist, naloxone, to reverse their antinociceptive effects. Buprenorphine also has an agonistic effect on the kappa-opioid receptors. For the first time, we report that intrathecal buprenorphine is approximately 17 times more effective than hydromorphone in inhibiting thermal pain, and buprenorphine produces its antinociceptive effect by acting as an agonist at both mu- and kappa-spinal opioid receptors. Naloxone administered intrathecally was effective in preventing the antinociceptive effects of subsequent intrathecal injections of buprenorphine. IMPLICATIONS: Hydromorphone and buprenorphine are two important drugs used for pain relief. We observed that intrathecal buprenorphine is 17 times more potent than hydromorphone to inhibit pain in rats. Both drugs exert their effects through specific spinal opioid receptors.     

Magnesium sulfate potentiates morphine antinociception at the spinal level

Intrathecal magnesium sulfate coinfusion with morphine increases antinociception in normal rats; however, because magnesium also delays the onset of tolerance, it is not clear whether this additional antinociception is a result of potentiated analgesia or tolerance abatement. We examined the antinociceptive interaction of intrathecal (IT) bolus magnesium sulfate and morphine in morphine naive rats and those with mechanical allodynia after a surgical incision. After intrathecal catheter implantation, rats were given preinjections of magnesium or saline, followed by injections of morphine or saline. In morphine na?ve rats, IT bolus magnesium sulfate 281 and 375 microg followed by IT morphine 0.25 or 0.5 nmol enhanced peak antinociception and area under the response versus time curve two-to-three-fold in the tail-flick test as compared with morphine alone. Likewise, in rats with incisional pain, IT bolus magnesium sulfate 188 and 375 microg followed by morphine 0.5 nmol reduced mechanical allodynia, whereas morphine 0.5 nmol alone did not. This study suggests that IT magnesium sulfate potentiates morphine at a spinal site of action. Implications: Magnesium sulfate potentiates morphine analgesia when coadministered intrathecally in normal rats, and in an animal model of mechanical allodynia after a surgical incision. These results suggest that intrathecal administration of magnesium sulfate may be a useful adjunct to spinal morphine analgesia.