INTRODUCTION
Opioids like morphine produce side effects ranging from nausea and vomiting, pruritus,
oversedation, dizziness and urinary retention to respiratory depression.[1] Particularly,
on chronic administration, it leads to development of tolerance.[2] Combining opioids
with certain other drugs (adjuvant analgesics) like ketamine, which is an N-methyl-D-aspartate
(NMDA) receptor antagonist, not only increases the analgesia, but also reduces the
dose of opioids.[3] Previous research done in our laboratory and outside suggests
that nimodipine, an L-type calcium channel blocker (L-CCBs), could be one such adjuvant
drug.[4] Though originally used as an antihypertensive agent, its current use is restricted
to the treatment of acute subarachnoid haemorrhage.[5] L-type calcium channels have
been reported to mediate the major part of membrane calcium currents in the small-sized
dorsal root ganglion neurons.[6] These neurons mediate the transmission of pain from
the peripheral body parts to the central nervous system.
Recently, we reported that nimodipine, when co-administered with morphine had a greater
therapeutic efficacy than either nifedipine or verapamil or diltiazem in the relief
of pain in experimental animals.[4
7] In the present study, the analgesic effect of morphine/nimodipine or both was tested
by the hot-plate nociceptive assay under experimental conditions that were different
from that used in earlier works.[8] The results show that nimodipine could be co-administered
with morphine for treating acute exacerbations of chronic pain as in the case of breakthrough
pain. However, long-term treatment may not be useful. Further, low doses of nimodipine
did not significantly interfere with the contraction of skeletal muscles as observed
by the Rotarod test. The latter evaluates muscle strength and coordination. Muscle
weakness could be an important side effect of L-CCB therapy as skeletal muscles also
express an isoform of L-type channels.[9]
METHODS
Experimental animals and nociceptive assay
In the present work, analgesia was evaluated by the hot-plate apparatus (from Stoelting
USA). Distinct groups of Wistar rats (weighing 175-225 g) received physiological saline
(Group-I; n=6), morphine sulphate I.P. subcutaneously (20 mg/kg twice daily for 7
days followed by 30 mg/kg twice daily for another 7 days; Group-II; n=6), nimodipine
(2 mg/kg once daily through intraperitoneal route; Group-III; n=6) or morphine (as
in Group-II) with nimodipine (as in Group-III; nimodipine was administered 20 minutes
before the morning dose of morphine) (Group- IV; n=6). The specific doses of nimodipine
and morphine were selected based upon both toxicity studies conducted in the laboratory
as well as previous literature on this topic.[4
7] The routes of administration of morphine (subcutaneous) and nimodipine (intraperitoneal)
were different. This was due to the fact that intraperitoneal administration leads
to quicker absorption into the blood as compared to subcutaneous administration. Thus,
peak analgesic effect of morphine would coincide with high blood level of nimodipine.
Morphine was purchased as morphine sulphate I.P. in ampoules (15 mg/ml) while nimodipine
was from Sigma USA. Nimodipine was dissolved in a vehicle consisting of physiological
saline, polyethylene glycol and absolute alcohol (2:2:1) under dim light.
The animals were maintained under 12 hours: 12 hours light and dark cycles and food
and water provided ad libitum. Prior permission for animal experimentation was obtained
from the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee of AIIMS. Hot-plate latency period
to hind paw licking or jumping was recorded by an observer blind to the drugs administered
to the animals [Figure 1]. The time period of testing was 40 minutes after saline/morphine
administration in Groups I-II. In group III (nimodipine only treated group), it was
after 60 minutes. Finally, in Group IV, it was 40 minutes after morphine administration.
It has been shown previously that maximum analgesic effect of morphine is achieved
after 40 minutes of administration (also personal observation).[4] The plate temperature
was maintained at 54 to 55°C. Cut-off time was set at 45 seconds, following which
the animal was removed from the hot-plate to prevent tissue damage. The latency period
was evaluated before starting the experiment and at the end of days 1, 2, 6, 10 and
14 of drug treatment.
Figure 1
The hot-plate apparatus from Stoelting, USA used for testing pain response in the
form of licking of hind paw or jumping. The cut-off time was 45 seconds
Rotarod testing
The rats (n=30; Five groups of six rats each) were trained on the rotating rotarod
apparatus (from Stoelting, USA) for 2 days at eight rotations per minute (r.p.m.).[10]
The cut-off time was 300 seconds (s). On the third day, nimodipine (1/2/5 mg/kg),
saline or vehicle (for nimodipine) was administered i.p. in different groups of rats.
They were placed on the rotarod apparatus and the latency of fall was recorded after
60 minutes of drug administration. During this testing session, the Rotarod accelerated
from 4 to 40 r.p.m. in 300 seconds. Lower values represent earlier fall and thus poor
muscle strength.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was done by ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison
test using the GraphPad Prism software (San Diego, USA). P<0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
Nociceptive assay
The analgesic effect of morphine produced an analgesic response, which started decreasing
by day 2 and reached close to baseline by day 10, indicating the development of tolerance
[Figure 2]. Compared to physiological saline, significant increase of analgesia was
noted till day 2 for the morphine-treated group. Nimodipine co-administration increased
the analgesic effect of morphine between days 2 to 6. However, nimodipine given alone
did not produce any antinociception. Also, long-term treatment with morphine + nimodipine
did not make a difference as evident from the hot-plate readings on days 10 and 14.
Figure 2
Hot-plate latency period in second(s) on different days of drug treatment. Higher
latency period indicates greater analgesia. Morphine produced an analgesic effect
which was significantly higher than saline on days 1 and 2 (*). Morphine with nimodipine
group showed higher analgesia than saline on days 1, 2 and 6 (*). It also exhibited
higher analgesia than morphine on days 2 and 6 (■). Nimodipine alone did not have
any analgesic effect. The values represent mean ± standard error of mean (s.e.m).
P<0.05 was considered statistically significant
Rotarod testing
Compared to saline, administration of vehicle did not significantly affect the latency
of falling [Figure 3]. Nimodipine (1 or 2 mg/kg) produced a non-significant reduction,
though at the higher dose of 5 mg/kg, there was significant reduction in the latency
to fall.
Figure 3
Latency of fall in seconds (s) during the Rotarod test. Nimodipine significantly decreased
the latency of fall in comparison to saline at a dose of 5 mg/kg. Values are mean
± s.e.m. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
DISCUSSION
The result of the present study shows that nimodipine, an L-CCB, which did not have
an analgesic action by itself, increased (potentiated) the analgesic effect of morphine.
This is similar to our earlier findings in the tail-flick test and depicts synergism
between these drugs.[4] However, there are certain differences between the earlier
and the current study. The potentiation was noted in the later part of the observation
period (day 12) in the earlier study which is in contrast to the current study where
it was noted between days 2 to 6. In both cases, the total period of observation was
14 days. The difference can be correlated with the fact that the tail-flick response
is a spinal reflex in comparison to the hot-plate test which is organised at the supraspinal
level and thus is more representative of pain in human beings.[8] In both situations,
the higher antinociceptive effect might be due to delay in the development of tolerance.
The mechanism responsible for the potentiation could be due to additional closure
of L-type voltage-dependent calcium channels by nimodipine in neurons concerned with
transmission of pain. This is besides closure of N- and P/Q-type voltage-dependent
calcium channels by morphine in the presynaptic nerve terminals.[4] Others have also
noted this facilitatory effect of L-CCBs on morphine-induced analgesia on chronic
administration.[11–13] Michaluk et al. (1998) observed that both nifedipine (5 mg/kg)
and verapamil (10 mg/ kg), though not nimodipine (5 mg/kg), could delay the development
of tolerance to morphine (20 mg/kg) in the hot-plate test.[13] It is possible that
different experimental conditions could account for this variability. For example,
the days on which the antinociceptive effect was recorded were different between the
present (0, 1, 2, 6, 10 and 14) and the earlier study (1, 4 and 8). Also, on day 1,
we noted maximum antinociceptive effect for the morphine with nimodipine group, which
reached the cut-off time period (45 seconds). In contrast, the study by Michaluk et
al. (1998) reported lower values.[13] Importantly, nimodipine might be safer than
other L-CCBs due to its cerebroselective action.[14] No obvious side effects were
observed in this study. Regarding blood pressure, Michaluk et al. (1998) had reported
slight but significant decrease of the diastolic pressure only toward the end of the
observation period (14th day).[11] The authors had used a higher dose of nimodipine
(5 mg/kg) in comparison to the present study (2 mg/kg). Presumably, the lower dose
would not have affected the blood pressure. The dose of nimodipine appears to be important
as higher doses (≥5 mg/kg) might produce muscle weakness as demonstrated by the Rotarod
test. In human beings, a dose of 2 mg/h i.v. is administered for treatment of subarachnoid
haemorrhage.[15] Using the conversion factor, its dose in a 200 g rat would be 0.86
mg.[16] A higher dose (2 mg/kg) was used in the current study as the route of administration
was different (intraperitoneal rather than intravenous).
The applicability of the present work could be in treating conditions like breakthrough
pain. These are temporary exacerbations of otherwise well-controlled pain and has
a high incidence of occurrence (40-86%).[17] Such patients, who are already on opioid
therapy, could be administered nimodipine through oral/parenteral routes for short
durations of time. As mentioned earlier, treating these conditions by increasing the
dose of opioids would lead to higher incidence of side effects. However, nimodipine
administration alone would be counterproductive, as reported earlier from our laboratory.[7]
In conclusion, the result of the present study suggests that nimodipine could potentiate
the analgesic effect of morphine for short time periods and thus could prove useful
in the treatment of pain.