Co-administration of memantine with epinephrine produces a marked peripheral action in intensifying and prolonging analgesia in response to local skin pinprick in rats

N(Omega)-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester potentiates lidocaine analgesic and anaesthetic effect in rats

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the experiment was to study the effect of L-NAME (N(Omega)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester) and its cotreatment with lidocaine on the spinal block and infiltrative cutaneous analgesia.

METHODS

The quality of cutaneous analgesia was examined by the block of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflexes following needle stimuli in the rat. Spinal anaesthetic potency was assessed by measuring three neurobehavioral examinations of nociceptive, proprioceptive and motor function following intrathecal injection in the rat.

KEY FINDINGS

L-NAME (0.6, 6 and 60 nmol) when cotreatment with lidocaine (ED50) produced dose-related cutaneous analgesia. Coadministration of L-NAME (0.6 μmol) with lidocaine intensified (P < 0.01) and prolonged (P < 0.001) cutaneous analgesia, whereas subcutaneous L-NAME (0.6 μmol) and saline did not provoke cutaneous analgesic effects. Adding L-NAME (2.5 μmol) to lidocaine intrathecally prolonged spinal sensory and motor block (P < 0.01), while intrathecal L-NAME (2.5 μmol) or 5% dextrose (vehicle) produced no spinal block.

CONCLUSIONS

L-NAME at 60 nmol (the minimum effective dose) increases and prolongs the effect of cutaneous analgesia of lidocaine. L-NANE at an ineffective dose potentiates lidocaine analgesic and anaesthetic effects.

Designer self-assembling peptide nanofibers induce biomineralization of lidocaine for slow-release and prolonged analgesia

The burst release of small molecular water-soluble drugs is a major problem when pursuing their long-acting formulations. Although various types of carrier materials have been developed for tackling this problem, it is still a big challenge to prevent water-soluble small molecules from fast release and diffusion. In this study, a biomineralization strategy based upon a self-assembling peptide is proposed for the slow release of lidocaine, a classic anesthetic with high solubility and a very small molecular weight. A bolaamphiphilic peptide was designed to self-assemble and produce negatively charged nanofibers, which were used as the template to absorb positively charged lidocaine molecules through an electrostatic interaction. The biomineralization of lidocaine was then induced by adjusting the pH, which lead to the formation of lidocaine microcrystals with a homogenous size. The microcrystals were incorporated into a hyaluronic acid hydrogel to form an injectable formulation. This formulation slowly released lidocaine and generate a prolonged anesthetic and analgesic effect in rodent models. Due to the constrained local and plasma lidocaine concentration, as well as the biocompatibility and biodegradability of the peptide materials, this formulation also showed considerable safety. These results suggest that nanofiber assisted biomineralization can provide a potential strategy for the fabrication of long-acting formulations for small molecular water-soluble drugs. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Long-acting formulations are highly pursued to achieve stronger therapeutic effect, or to avoid repeated administration of drugs, especially through painful injection. Using carrier materials to slow down the release of bioactive molecules is a common strategy to reach this goal. However, for many water-soluble small molecular drugs currently used in clinic, it is notoriously difficult to slow down their release and diffusion. This study proposes a novel strategy based on a controllable mineralization process using self-assembling peptide nanofibers as the template. Taking lidocaine as an example, we showed how peptide-drug microcrystals with well-controlled size and shape could be obtained, which exhibit significantly prolonged anesthetic and analgesic effect. As a proof-of-concept study, this work proposes a promising strategy to control the release of water-soluble small molecular drugs.

Comparison of Adrenaline and Dexmedetomidine in Improving the Cutaneous Analgesia of Mexiletine in Response to Skin Pinpricks in Rats

BACKGROUND

Adrenaline (Adr) and dexmedetomidine (Dex) are commonly used adjuvants of local anesthetics; however, the difference in the improvement of analgesia of local anesthetics between the 2 adjuvants remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this experimental research was to evaluate the cutaneous analgesic effect of mexiletine (Mex) by coadministration with Dex or Adr.

METHODS

The effect of a nociceptive block was assessed based on the inhibition of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex in response to skin pinpricks in rats. The analgesic activity of Mex alone and Mex coadministered with Dex or Adr was evaluated after subcutaneous injections. Subcutaneous injections of drugs or combinations include Mex 0.6, 1.8, and 6.0 μmol; Adr 13.66 nmol; Dex 1.05600 nmol; saline; and Mex 1.8 and 6.0 μmol, respectively, combined with Dex 0.01056, 0.10560, and 1.05600 nmol or Adr 0.55, 2.73, and 13.66 nmol, with each injection dose of 0.6 mL.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous injections of Mex elicited dose-related cutaneous analgesia. Compared with Mex (1.8 μmol), adding Dex or Adr to Mex (1.8 μmol) solutions for skin nociceptive block potentiated and prolonged the action. Mex (6.0 μmol) combined with Dex or Adr extended the duration of cutaneous analgesia when compared with Mex (6.0 μmol) alone. A high dose of Adr is more effective with Mex 1.8 μmol than that of Dex, whereas medium and low doses were less effective. Mex 6.0 μmol combined with any dose of Adr is superior to that of Dex.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Dex and Adr improve the sensory block and enhance the nociceptive block duration of Mex. But in most cases, Adr is superior to Dex. It may be that different mechanisms of action of the 2 adjuvants lead to the differences.

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.

Naloxone prolongs cutaneous nociceptive block by lidocaine in rats

We aimed to investigate the local anesthetic properties of naloxone alone or as an adjunct for the local anesthetic lidocaine. After the block of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex (CTMR) with drugs delivery by subcutaneous infiltration, cutaneous nociceptive block was tested on the ratsꞌ backs. We demonstrated that naloxone, as well as lidocaine, elicited cutaneous analgesia dose-dependently. The relative potency in inducing cutaneous analgesia was lidocaine [22.6 (20.1 - 25.4) μmol/kg] > naloxone [43.2 (40.3 - 46.4) μmol/kg] (P < 0.05). On an equianesthetic basis [50% effective dose (ED₅₀ ), ED₂₅ , and ED₇₅ ], naloxone displayed a greater duration of cutaneous analgesic action than lidocaine (P < 0.01). Coadministration of lidocaine (ED₉₅ or ED₅₀ ) and ineffective-dose naloxone (13.3 μmol/kg) intensifies sensory block (P < 0.01) with prolonged duration of action (P < 0.001) compared with lidocaine (ED₉₅ or ED₅₀ ) alone or naloxone (13.3 μmol/kg) alone on infiltrative cutaneous analgesia. The preclinical data showed that naloxone is less potent than lidocaine as an infiltrative anesthetic, but its analgesic duration was longer than that of lidocaine. Furthermore, naloxone prolongs lidocaine analgesia, acting synergistically for nociceptive block.

The Addition of Epinephrine to Proxymetacaine or Oxybuprocaine Solution Increases the Depth and Duration of Cutaneous Analgesia in Rats

BACKGROUND

The aim of this experiment was to investigate the interaction between epinephrine and 2 local anesthetics (proxymetacaine or oxybuprocaine) using subcutaneous injections under the hairy skin, thereby simulating infiltration blocks.

METHODS

Using a rat model of cutaneous trunci muscle reflex in response to local skin pinpricks, the anesthetic properties of proxymetacaine and oxybuprocaine alone and in combination with epinephrine as an infiltrative anesthetic were tested. Isobolographic analysis was used for the analgesic interactions between adjuvant epinephrine and the local anesthetics. Lidocaine was used as a control group.

RESULTS

Oxybuprocaine, proxymetacaine, and lidocaine elicited a dose-dependent block to pinpricks. On the 50% effective dose (ED50) basis, their relative potencies were proxymetacaine [0.126 (0.113-0.141) μmol] greater than oxybuprocaine [0.208 (0.192-0.226) μmol] greater than lidocaine [6.331 (5.662-7.079) μmol] (P < 0.01 for each comparison). On an equipotent basis (ED25, ED50, and ED75), sensory block duration elicited by oxybuprocaine or proxymetacaine was greater than that elicited by lidocaine (P < 0.01). Coadministration of proxymetacaine, oxybuprocaine, or lidocaine with epinephrine produced a synergistic analgesic effect and prolonged the cutaneous analgesic effect. After adding epinephrine, oxybuprocaine was much faster, reaching its maximal blockade, than proxymetacaine or lidocaine (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that proxymetacaine and oxybuprocaine were more potent and produced greater duration of nociceptive block than lidocaine. The use of epinephrine augmented the potency and prolonged the duration of proxymetacaine, oxybuprocaine, and lidocaine as an infiltrative anesthetic.

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.