Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 2002
The effects of OP-1206 alpha-CD on walking dysfunction in the rat neuropathic intermittent claudication model.
IV prostaglandin E1 improves clinical symptoms in patients with spinal canal stenosis. In the present study, we assessed the effects of OP-1206 alpha-CD, an orally active prostaglandin E1 analog, on walking dysfunction in the rat neuropathic intermittent claudication model. To induce spinal stenosis, two pieces of silicon rubber were placed in the lumbar (L4-6) epidural space in rats. Postsurgical walking function was measured using a treadmill apparatus. Spinal cord blood flow (SCBF) and skin blood flow (SKBF) were measured using a laser-Doppler flowmeter. OP-1206 alpha-CD was administered orally bid for 11 days from postoperative Day 3. In Control nontreated rats, a significant walking dysfunction was observed from Day 1 after the induction of spinal stenosis and persisted for 14 days when compared with the Sham-Operated group. On postoperative Day 15, SCBF revealed a significant reduction in the territory of spinal stenosis, although SKBF was not affected. OP-1206 alpha-CD significantly improved walking dysfunction on postoperative Days 5 (300 microg/kg), 7 (150 and 300 microg/kg), and 14 (150 and 300 microg/kg) when compared with the Vehicle-Treated group. On postoperative Day 15, the decrease in SCBF was significantly (150 and 300 microg/kg) improved by OP-1206 alpha-CD treatment, albeit SKBF remained unaffected. These data show that oral treatment with OP-1206 alpha-CD is effective in improving walking dysfunction induced by spinal canal stenosis, and this therapeutic effect is likely mediated by improved SCBF at the territory of spinal stenosis. ⋯ Intermittent motor dysfunction is a clinical symptom associated with partial spinal compression. The present study provides evidence that oral treatment with the prostaglandin E1 analog (OP-1206 alpha-CD) is effective in improving motor dysfunction and spinal cord blood flow in rats with spinal compression.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 2002
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. ⋯ 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.