4.5 Article

Interaction between morphine and norketamine enantiomers in rodent models of nociception

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 90, 期 4, 页码 769-777

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2008.05.019

关键词

S(+)-norketamine; R(-)-norketamine; NMDA-receptor antagonist-opioid-receptor agonist combination therapy; rodent models of pain

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA017529] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ketamine, one of a few clinically-available N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor antagonists, is known to improve the analgesic efficacy of opioids in humans and rodents. However, the use of ketamine in combination with opioids is mainly restricted to the perioperative setting, due to severe psychoromimetic, sedative and motor side effects. Recent data from our laboratory demonstrated that a major metabolite of ketamine, norketamine, in particular the S(+) enantiomer, had a better antinociception/side effects profile than ketamine in rats. It is unknown if norketamine affects opioid antinociception. In the present study. morphine (a low dose) was combined with S(+)- and R(-)-norketamine (sub-antinociceptive doses) and characterized utilizing rodent models of pain including: thermal nociception (the tail-flick test), peripheral neuropathy (chronic constriction nerve injury) and tonic inflammatory pain (the formalin test). The data showed that: 1) Norketamine enhanced morphine antinociception and blocked tolerance to this effect; 2) Norketamine potentiated morphine effectiveness in the alleviation of symptoms resulting from injury to nerve (mechanical hyperalgesia, tactile allodynia) and peripheral tissue (formalin-induced nociceptive behavior); 3) S(+)-norketamine was more potent than R(-)-norketamine; 4) Antinociception was not confounded by significant side effects. Morphine-S(+)-norketamine combination drug therapy may prove clinically useful for the alleviation of acute and chronic pain of differing etiology. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据