Spinal blockades of class I antiarrythmic drugs with bupivacaine by isobolographic analysis in rats

A comparative study on the effect of dopamine vs phenylephrine in improving the cutaneous analgesic effect of mexiletine in rats

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to compare the effects of the combined administration of two adjuvants, dopamine and phenylephrine, on the cutaneous analgesic effect and duration of mexiletine in rats.

METHODS

Nociceptive blockage was evaluated by the inhibition of response to skin pinpricks in rats via the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex (CTMR). After subcutaneous injection, the analgesic activities of mexiletine in the absence and presence of either dopamine or phenylephrine were assessed. Each injection was standardized into 0.6 ml with a mixture of drugs and saline.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous injections of mexiletine successfully induced dose-dependent cutaneous analgesia in rats. The results revealed that rats injected with 1.8 μmol mexiletine exhibited 43.75% blockage (%MPE), while rats injected with 6.0 μmol mexiletine showed 100% blockage. Co-application of mexiletine (1.8 or 6.0 μmol) with dopamine (0.06, 0.60, or 6.00 μmol) elicited full sensory block (%MPE). Sensory blockage ranged from 81.25% to 95.83% in rats injected with mexiletine (1.8 μmol) and phenylephrine (0.0059 or 0.0295 μmol), and complete subcutaneous analgesia was observed in rats injected with mexiletine (1.8 μmol) and a higher concentration of phenylephrine (0.1473 μmol). Furthermore, mexiletine at 6.0 μmol completely blocked nociception when combined with any concentration of phenylephrine, while 0.1473 μmol phenylephrine alone exhibited 35.417% subcutaneous analgesia. The combined application of dopamine (0.06/0.6/6 μmol) and mexiletine (1.8/6 μmol) resulted in increased %MPE, complete block time, full recovery time, and AUCs compared to the combined application of phenylephrine (0.0059 and 0.1473 μmol) and mexiletine (1.8/6 μmol) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Dopamine is superior to phenylephrine in improving sensory blockage and enhancing the duration of nociceptive blockage by mexiletine.

Spinal sensory and motor blockade by intrathecal doxylamine and triprolidine in rats

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this experiment was mainly to examine the effects of intrathecally injected doxylamine and triprolidine, two antihistamine drugs spinal motor and sensory functions.

METHODS

After intrathecally injecting the rats with five different doses, the dose-response curves of spinal sensory and motor block with doxylamine and triprolidine were constructed. In comparison with the local anaesthetic mepivacaine, the quality and duration of spinal anaesthesia with doxylamine or triprolidine were conducted.

KEY FINDINGS

Doxylamine, mepivacaine and triprolidine elicited spinal motor and sensory (nociception and proprioception) blockades in a dose-dependent fashion. On the ED₅₀ (50% effective dose) basis, the rank order of drug potency was triprolidine > mepivacaine > doxylamine (P < 0.05) at provoking spinal motor, proprioceptive and nociceptive blockades. On the equianaesthetic doses (ED₂₅ , ED₅₀ and ED₇₅ ), the duration of spinal anaesthesia with doxylamine was longer (P < 0.01) than that with mepivacaine or triprolidine. Moreover, doxylamine or triprolidine displayed greater potency (ED₅₀ ) (P < 0.05) and duration (P < 0.05) of sensory block over motor block.

CONCLUSIONS

Doxylamine or triprolidine produces a dose-dependent effect of spinal motor and sensory block. Triprolidine with a better nociception-selective action over motor block has a better potency than mepivacaine or doxylamine. Doxylamine and triprolidine produce longer durations than mepivacaine.

Mexiletine co-injected with clonidine increases the quality and duration of cutaneous analgesia in response to skin pinpricks in the rat

The goal of the experimental design was to assess the cutaneous analgesic effect of mexiletine by co-injection with clonidine. The effect of nociceptive block was evaluated according to the inhibition of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex (CTMR) in response to skin pinpricks in rats. The dose-related analgesic effect of mexiletine alone or mexiletine co-administrated with clonidine was constructed after subcutaneous injection. Subcutaneous injections of mexiletine elicited dose-related cutaneous analgesia. Compared with mexiletine (1.8μmol), adding clonidine to mexiletine (1.8μmol) solutions for skin nociceptive block potentiated and prolonged the action (p<0.01). Mexiletine (6μmol) combined with clonidine extended the duration of cutaneous analgesia when compared with mexiletine (6μmol) alone (p<0.01). Co-administration of clonidine increases the potency and extends the duration of cutaneous analgesia by mexiletine, and the minimal dose of clonidine to intensify the analgesic effect is 0.06μmol.

Memantine elicits spinal blockades of motor function, proprioception, and nociception in rats

Although memantine blocks sodium currents and produces local skin anesthesia, spinal anesthesia with memantine is unknown. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the local anesthetic effect of memantine in spinal anesthesia and its comparison with a widely used local anesthetic lidocaine. After intrathecally injecting the rats with five doses of each drug, the dose-response curves of memantine and lidocaine were constructed. The potencies of the drugs and durations of spinal anesthetic effects on motor function, proprioception, and nociception were compared with those of lidocaine. We showed that memantine produced dose-dependent spinal blockades in motor function, proprioception, and nociception. On a 50% effective dose (ED50 ) basis, the rank of potency was lidocaine greater than memantine (P < 0.05 for the differences). At the equipotent doses (ED25 , ED50 , ED75 ), the block duration produced by memantine was longer than that produced by lidocaine (P < 0.05 for the differences). Memantine, but not lidocaine, displayed more sensory/nociceptive block than motor block. The preclinical data demonstrated that memantine is less potent than lidocaine, whereas memantine produces longer duration of spinal anesthesia than lidocaine. Memantine shows a more sensory-selective action over motor blockade.

Propranolol combined with dopamine has a synergistic action in intensifying and prolonging cutaneous analgesia in rats

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the experiment was to assess interactions of dopamine with propranolol as an infiltrative anesthetic.

METHODS

After injecting the rats with four doses of drugs subcutaneously, the cutaneous analgesic effect of propranolol was compared with dopamine through the blockade of cutaneous trunci muscle reflex (CTMR) in response to local skin pinprick. Drug-drug interactions were examined via an isobolographic analysis.

RESULTS

We demonstrated that the action of propranolol and dopamine was dose dependent to skin infiltrative analgesia. On the ED(50) (50% effective dose) basis, the rank of drug potency was propranolol (11.3 [10.6-12.2]μmol) > dopamine (195 [188-205]μmol) (p < 0.001). At the equi-anesthetic doses (ED(25), ED(50), ED(75)), the block duration caused by dopamine was equal to that caused by propranolol. Coadministration of dopamine and propranolol exhibited a synergistic effect on infiltrative cutaneous analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The preclinical data showed that dopamine produced a lesser potency but a comparable duration of cutaneous analgesia compared to propranolol. Adding dopamine to propranolol potentiated and prolonged propranolol's cutaneous analgesic effect.

Subcutaneous L-tyrosine elicits cutaneous analgesia in response to local skin pinprick in rats

The purpose of the study was to estimate the ability of L-tyrosine to induce cutaneous analgesia and to investigate the interaction between L-tyrosine and the local anesthetic lidocaine. After subcutaneously injecting the rats with L-tyrosine and lidocaine in a dose-dependent manner, cutaneous analgesia (by blocking the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex-CTMR) was evaluated in response to the local pinprick. The drug-drug interaction was analyzed by using an isobolographic method. We showed that both L-tyrosine and lidocaine produced dose-dependent cutaneous analgesia. On the 50% effective dose (ED50) basis, the rank of drug potency was lidocaine (5.09 [4.88-5.38] μmol)>L-tyrosine (39.1 [36.5-41.8] μmol) (P<0.05). At the equipotent doses (ED25, ED50, and ED75), the duration of cutaneous analgesia caused by L-tyrosine lasted longer than that caused by lidocaine (P<0.01). Lidocaine co-administered with L-tyrosine exhibited an additive effect on infiltrative cutaneous analgesia. Our pre-clinical study demonstrated that L-tyrosine elicits the local/cutaneous analgesia, and the interaction between L-tyrosine and lidocaine is additive. L-tyrosine has a lower potency but much greater duration of cutaneous analgesia than lidocaine. Adding L-tyrosine to lidocaine preparations showed greater duration of cutaneous analgesia compared with lidocaine alone.