Cross-tolerance between antinociception induced by swim-stress and morphine in formalin test

Potentiation of morphine-induced antinociception by harmaline: involvement of μ-opioid and ventral tegmental area NMDA receptors

RATIONAL

Morphine is one of the most well-known and potent analgesic agents; however, it can also induce various side effects. Thus, finding drugs and mechanisms which can potentiate the analgesic effects of low doses of morphine will be a good strategy for pain management.

OBJECTIVE

The involvement of μ-opioid receptors and ventral tegmental area (VTA) glutamatergic system in harmaline and morphine combination on the nociceptive response were investigated. Also, we examined reward efficacy and tolerance expression following the drugs.

METHODS

Animals were bilaterally cannulated in the VTA by stereotaxic instrument. A tail-flick (TF) apparatus and conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm were used to measure nociceptive response and rewarding effects in male NMRI mice respectively.

RESULTS

Morphine (2 mg/kg, i.p.) had no effect in TF test. Also, harmaline (1.25 and 5 mg/kg, i.p.) could not change pain threshold. Combination of a non-effective dose of harmaline (5 mg/kg) and morphine (2 mg/kg) produced antinociception and also prevented morphine tolerance but had no effect on the acquisition of CPP. Systemic administration of naloxone (0.5 and 1 mg/kg) and intra-VTA microinjection of NMDA (0.06 and 0.1 μg/mouse) before harmaline (5 mg/kg) plus morphine (2 mg/kg) prevented antinociception induced by the drugs. D-AP5 (0.5 and 1 μg/mouse, intra-VTA) potentiated the effect of low-dose harmaline (1.25 mg/kg) and morphine (2 mg/kg) and induced antinociception. Microinjection of the same doses of NMDA or D-AP5 into the VTA alone had no effect on pain threshold.

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that harmaline potentiated the analgesic effect of morphine and reduced morphine tolerance. Glutamatergic and μ-opioidergic system interactions in the VTA seem to have a modulatory role in harmaline plus morphine-induced analgesia.

Relationship between endogenous opioid function and opioid analgesic adverse effects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Our recent work indicates that endogenous opioid activity influences analgesic responses to opioid medications. This secondary analysis evaluated whether endogenous opioid activity is associated with degree of opioid analgesic adverse effects, and whether chronic pain status and sex affect these adverse effects.

METHODS

Using a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover design, 51 subjects with chronic low back pain and 38 healthy controls participated in 3 separate sessions, undergoing 2 laboratory-evoked pain tasks (ischemic and thermal) after receiving placebo, naloxone, or morphine. Endogenous opioid system function was indexed by the difference in pain responses between the placebo and naloxone conditions. These measures were examined for associations with morphine-related adverse effects.

RESULTS

Chronic pain subjects reported significantly greater itching and unpleasant bodily sensations with morphine than controls (P < 0.05). Across groups, only 6 of 112 possible associations between adverse effects and blockade effects were significant. For the ischemic task, higher endogenous opioid function was associated with greater itching (visual analog scale [VAS]; P < 0.05), numbness (tolerance; P < 0.001), dry mouth (tolerance; P < 0.05), and unpleasant bodily sensations (VAS; P < 0.05). For the thermal task, higher endogenous opioid function was associated with greater numbness (VAS; P < 0.05) and feeling carefree (VAS; P < 0.05). There were no significant main or interaction effects of chronic pain status or sex on these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

No consistent relationships were observed between endogenous opioid function and morphine-related adverse effects. This is in stark contrast to our previous observation of strong relationships between elevated endogenous opioid function and smaller morphine analgesic effects.

Endogenous opioid inhibition of chronic low-back pain influences degree of back pain relief after morphine administration

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Factors underlying differential responsiveness to opioid analgesic medications used in chronic pain management are poorly understood. We tested whether individual differences in endogenous opioid inhibition of chronic low-back pain were associated with the magnitude of acute reductions in back pain ratings after morphine administration.

METHODS

In randomized counterbalanced order over three sessions, 50 chronic low-back pain patients received intravenous naloxone (8 mg), morphine (0.08 mg/kg), or placebo. Back pain intensity was rated predrug and again after peak drug activity was achieved using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (Sensory and Affective subscales, VAS Intensity measure). Opioid blockade effect measures to index degree of endogenous opioid inhibition of back pain intensity were derived as the difference between predrug to postdrug changes in pain intensity across placebo and naloxone conditions, with similar morphine responsiveness measures derived across placebo and morphine conditions.

RESULTS

Morphine significantly reduced back pain compared with placebo (McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form Sensory, VAS; P < 0.01). There were no overall effects of opioid blockade on back pain intensity. However, individual differences in opioid blockade effects were significantly associated with the degree of acute morphine-related reductions in back pain on all measures, even after controlling for effects of age, sex, and chronic pain duration (P < 0.03). Individuals exhibiting greater endogenous opioid inhibition of chronic back pain intensity reported less acute relief of back pain with morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphine appears to provide better acute relief of chronic back pain in individuals with lower natural opioidergic inhibition of chronic pain intensity. Possible implications for personalized medicine are discussed.

Endogenous opioid function mediates the association between laboratory-evoked pain sensitivity and morphine analgesic responses

Predictors of responsiveness to opioid analgesic medications are not well understood. This study tested whether individual differences in endogenous opioid (EO) function are associated with analgesic responsiveness to morphine. In randomized, counterbalanced order over 3 sessions, 45 chronic low back pain participants and 31 healthy controls received an opioid antagonist (8 mg naloxone), morphine (0.08 mg/kg), or placebo. Participants then engaged in 2 laboratory-evoked pain tasks (ischemic and thermal). Outcomes included pain threshold, pain tolerance, and pain ratings. Indexes of EO function and morphine analgesic responsiveness were derived for each measure as the difference in pain responses between the placebo condition and naloxone or morphine condition, respectively. For all 7 pain measures across the 2 laboratory pain tasks, greater EO function was associated with significantly lower morphine analgesic responsiveness (P<0.001-P=0.02). Morphine reduced pain responses of low EO individuals to levels similar to those of high EO individuals receiving placebo. Higher placebo condition-evoked pain sensitivity was associated with significantly greater morphine analgesic responsiveness for 5 of 7 pain measures (P<0.001-P=0.02). These latter associations were significantly mediated by EO function for 4 of these 5 pain outcomes (all P values<0.05). In the laboratory-evoked pain context, opioid analgesic medications may supplement inadequate EO analgesia, with little incremental benefit in those with preexisting high EO function. Implications for personalized medicine are discussed.

Shared mechanisms for opioid tolerance and a transition to chronic pain

Clinical pain conditions may remain responsive to opiate analgesics for extended periods, but such persistent acute pain can undergo a transition to an opiate-resistant chronic pain state that becomes a much more serious clinical problem. To test the hypothesis that cellular mechanisms of chronic pain in the primary afferent also contribute to the development of opiate resistance, we used a recently developed model of the transition of from acute to chronic pain, hyperalgesic priming. Repeated intradermal administration of the potent and highly selective mu-opioid agonist, [d-Ala(2),N-MePhe(4),gly-ol]-enkephalin (DAMGO), to produce tolerance for its inhibition of prostaglandin E(2) hyperalgesia, simultaneously produced hyperalgesic priming. Conversely, injection of an inflammogen, carrageenan, used to produce priming produced DAMGO tolerance. Both effects were prevented by inhibition of protein kinase Cepsilon (PKCepsilon). Carrageenan also induced opioid dependence, manifest as mu-opioid receptor antagonist (d-Phe-Cys-Tyr-d-Trp-Orn-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH(2))-induced hyperalgesia that, like priming, was PKCepsilon and G(i) dependent. These findings suggest that the transition from acute to chronic pain, and development of mu-opioid receptor tolerance and dependence may be linked by common cellular mechanisms in the primary afferent.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2005

This paper is the 28th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning over a quarter-century of research. It summarizes papers published during 2005 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity, neurophysiology and transmitter release (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); immunological responses (Section 17).

Dopamine receptor mechanism(s) and antinociception and tolerance induced by swim stress in formalin test

In the present study, involvement of D1 and D2 dopamine receptors in the antinociception and tolerance induced by water swim stress in the formalin test has been investigated. Water swim stress at 20 degrees C temperature induced antinociception in both phases of the formalin test. Intraperitoneal administration of the D2 dopamine receptor antagonist, sulpiride (25 and 50 mg/kg) reduced swim stress-induced antinociception in the second phase of the formalin test. A higher dose of the D1 dopamine receptor antagonist, SCH23390 (0.1 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) also reduced swim stress-induced antinociception in both phases of the test. Exposure to 3 min water swimming stress, once daily for 3 days, induced tolerance to swim stress-induced antinociception in the second phase of the formalin test. Administration of sulpiride (12.5, 25 and 50 mg/kg), during exposure to water swimming stress (once daily for 3 days), decreased tolerance in the second phase, whereas the antagonist (12.5 and 50 mg/kg) increased pain scores in the first phase of the formalin test. Sulpiride (25 mg/kg) treatment however, once daily for 3 days with no water swimming stress, did not alter swim stress-induced antinociception (0.5, 1 and 3 min tests). Similarly, repeated treatment with SCH23390 (0.05 mg/kg) and water swimming stress did not alter tolerance induced by water swimming stress. Repeated administration of the antagonist in the absence of water swimming stress also did not change swim stress-induced antinociception. The results may indicate a possible involvement of both dopamine D1 and D2 receptors in the antinociception induced by swim stress and D2 receptor mechanism in the tolerance induced by repeated swim stress.