Analgesic Efficacy of the κ-Receptor Agonist, Enadoline, in Dental Surgery Pain

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atul C. Pande ◽  
Robert E. Pyke ◽  
Martha Greiner ◽  
Stephen A. Cooper ◽  
Ronald Benjamin ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shen Sun ◽  
Yundong Guo ◽  
Tingting Wang ◽  
Shaoqiang Huang

Background: Efficient maternal pain relief after cesarean delivery remains challenging, but it is important to improve outcomes for the mother and the newborn during the puerperium. We compared the analgesic effect of nalbuphine (a κ receptor agonist/μ receptor antagonistic) with that of sufentanil (a µ-receptor agonist) in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after cesarean section.Methods: We enrolled 84 patients scheduled for elective cesarean sections with spinal anesthesia and randomized them into either nalbuphine or sufentanil groups (42 patients each). Pain scores, PCIA drug consumptions, degree of satisfaction, and adverse events were recorded as outcome measures.Results: The pain scores at rest and uterine cramping pain scores in the nalbuphine group were lower than those in the sufentanil group at 6, 12, and 24 h after the operation. Also, the pain scores while switching to a seated position were lower in the nalbuphine group than in the sufentanil group at 6 and 12 h after the operation (p < 0.05). We found no significant differences in the PCIA drug consumption between the two groups. The degree of satisfaction in patients in the nalbuphine group was higher than that of patients in the sufentanil group (p = 0.01). Adverse events did not differ in the two groups.Conclusion: PCIA with nalbuphine provides better analgesia and higher patient satisfaction than sufentanil after cesarean section.


2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 744-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin S. Angst ◽  
Bhamini Ramaswamy ◽  
M Frances Davies ◽  
Mervyn Maze

Background In animals, systemic and intrathecal administration of the alpha2 -adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine results in robust antinociceptive effects in models of heat pain. In humans, systemically administered dexmedetomidine is approved for sedating patients in the intensive care unit. However, whether systemic administration of dexmedetomidine in humans produces significant analgesia at doses causing sedation but not unconsciousness remains controversial. Methods This study in human volunteers used a placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized design to examine whether dexmedetomidine at doses causing mild to severe sedation produces analgesia in experimental models of heat and electrical pain. Results were compared to the effects of the mu-opioid receptor agonist alfentanil. A computer-controlled infusion provided four median step-up plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine (0.09, 0.24, 0.54, and 1.23 ng/ml) and alfentanil (13.4, 33.8, 67.8, and 126.1 ng/ml). Results Sedative and cognitive effects of dexmedetomidine were dose-dependent, resulting in a median sedation score of 95 of 100 and slowing of cognitive speed (reaction time, trail-making test) by a factor of about two at the highest plasma concentration. Dexmedetomidine did not attenuate heat or electrical pain. Alfentanil caused severe sedation (median sedation score 88 of 100) and slowed cognitive speed by a factor of approximately 1.4 at the highest plasma concentration. Alfentanil attenuated heat and electrical pain dose dependently. Conclusion This study documents that systemic dexmedetomidine lacks analgesic efficacy for heat and electrical pain at doses causing mild to severe sedation. These results provide further evidence suggesting that systemic administration of dexmedetomidine lacks broad analgesic activity in models of acute pain at doses not rendering humans unconscious.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarkko Kalliomäki ◽  
Märta Segerdahl ◽  
Lynn Webster ◽  
Annika Reimfelt ◽  
Karin Huizar ◽  
...  

AbstractAimTo evaluate the analgesic efficacy of AZD1940, a novel peripherally acting cannabinoid CB1/CB2 receptor agonist, in patients undergoing third molar surgical removal.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients scheduled for surgical removal of an impacted lower third molar. Patients received a single oral dose of 800 μg AZD1940, 500 mg naproxen or placebo 1.5 h before surgery. The dose of 800 μg AZD1940 was selected based on earlier data from a single dose study in man, in which it was identified as the highest well tolerated dose. Ongoing post-operative pain (primary variable) and pain on jaw movement were assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100 mm) from 0 to 8h postoperatively, deriving the area under the curve of ongoing pain (VAS AUC0–8h), and of pain on jaw movement (VASJM AUC0–8h). The time to requesting rescue medication (acetaminophen) was recorded. Subjective cannabinoid effects were assessed by the visual analog mood scale (VAMS).ResultsIn total, 151 patients were randomized to AZD1940 (n = 61), placebo (n = 59) or naproxen (n = 31). There was no statistically significant difference in pain VAS AUC0–8h or in VASJM AUC0–8h between AZD1940 and placebo. Naproxen significantly reduced both pain VAS AUC0–8h and VASJM AUC0–8h as compared with placebo (p < 0.0001 for both). Significantly fewer patients on naproxen requested rescue medication and the duration of time to rescue was greater, as compared with placebo, whereas there were no significant differences between AZD1940 and placebo in these outcome variables. Statistically significant increases in VAMS items “sedated” and “high” were observed after AZD1940 compared with placebo. The increases in VAMS were numerically small compared with previous findings with a centrally acting cannabinoid. The most commonly observed adverse events (AE) on treatment with AZD1940 were postural dizziness (80% of subjects), nausea (26%), hypotension (21%) and headache (13%), most AE being mild to moderate.ConclusionThe CB1/CB2 receptor agonist AZD1940 did not reduce post-operative pain after lower third molar surgical removal at doses exerting subjective cannabinoid effects.ImplicationsActivation of peripheral CB1/CB2 receptors per se is probably of less clinical relevance for the treatment of acute nociceptive pain in man.


2006 ◽  
Vol 531 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 103-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsiang-en Wu ◽  
Han-Sen Sun ◽  
Maia Terashivili ◽  
Emma Schwasinger ◽  
Ichiro Sora ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (8) ◽  
pp. 945-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Nagase ◽  
Satomi Imaide ◽  
Takaaki Yamada ◽  
Shigeto Hirayama ◽  
Toru Nemoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 110 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel W. Gil ◽  
Cynthia V. Cheevers ◽  
Karen M. Kedzie ◽  
Cynthia A. Manlapaz ◽  
Sandhya Rao ◽  
...  

Background The use of alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for analgesia is limited due to a narrow therapeutic window. Definition of the role of alpha receptor subtypes in alpha agonist mediated analgesia may identify strategies to separate the analgesic from sedative and cardiovascular effects. Methods Analgesic activity of brimonidine, clonidine, and tizanidine was investigated in wild-type C57B/6, alpha-2A, and alpha-2C knockout mice with allodynia induced by N-methyl-D-aspartate or sulprostone. The alpha receptor selectivity of the alpha agonists was assessed using functional in vitro recombinant assays. Results Brimonidine, clonidine, and tizanidine reduced N-methyl-D-aspartate- and sulprostone-induced allodynia in wild-type mice, but not alpha-2A knockout mice. In alpha-2C knockout mice, brimonidine and tizanidine reduced allodynia in both models, whereas clonidine only reduced N-methyl-D-aspartate-induced allodynia. In vitro, clonidine and tizanidine activated alpha-1 and alpha-2 receptors with similar potencies, whereas brimonidine was selective for alpha-2 receptors. In alpha-2C knockout mice with sulprostone-induced allodynia, blockade of clonidine's alpha-1 receptor agonist activity restored clonidine's analgesic efficacy. In wild-type mice, the analgesic potency of intrathecal clonidine and tizanidine was increased 3- to 10-fold by coadministration with the alpha-1A-selective antagonist 5-methylurapidil without affecting sedation. Following intraperitoneal administration, the therapeutic window was negligible for clonidine and tizanidine, but greater for brimonidine. 5-Methylurapidil enhanced the therapeutic window of intraperitoneal clonidine and tizanidine approximately 10-fold. Conclusions Alpha-1A receptor agonist activity can counterbalance alpha-2 receptor agonist-induced analgesia. Greater alpha-2 selectivity may enhance the therapeutic window of alpha-2 agonists in the treatment of pain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document