Abstract
Purpose
Pregabalin is probably more effective than prototype gabapentin in different kinds of pain treatments. This study was performed to compare the potency of gabapentin, pregabalin, and morphine in a well-established model of visceral pain.
Methods
The number of abdominal contractions was counted for 30 min in adult male mice that received different doses of pregabalin, gabapentin, morphine, or placebo intraperitoneally 30 min before receiving 0.6% acetic acid 10 mL·kg−1.The antinociceptive effect of each drug dose was determined as a percentage of the reduction in the number of acetic acid-induced writhes. The effective doses, for 20%, 50%, and 80% response (ED20, ED50, and ED80, respectively), of each drug were calculated using least squares linear regression analysis, and then dose-response curves were compared.
Results
Pregabalin, gabapentin, and morphine produced a linear dose-dependent antinociceptive effect (coefficient of determination [r2] > 0.9). No difference was observed between slopes of dose-response curves. The ED50 estimates (95% confidence interval) for pregabalin, gabapentin, and morphine were 17.1 (12.9 to 22.1) mg·kg−1, 87.1 (45.8 to 129.8) mg·kg−1, and 0.2 (0.1 to 0.3) mg·kg−1, respectively.
Conclusion
In this animal model of visceral pain, all three drugs exhibited parallel dose-response curves. Pregabalin had five times the potency of gabapentin and 1/85th the potency of morphine. Similar potency ratios may apply in clinical practice. Despite some limitations of animal studies, this model could be useful for comparing new analgesics in visceral pain treatment.
Résumé
ObjectifLa prégabaline est probablement plus efficace que son prototype, la gabapentine, dans divers traitements contre la douleur. Cette étude a été réalisée pour comparer la puissance de la gabapentine, de la prégabaline et de la morphine dans un modèle bien établi de douleur viscérale.
Méthode
Le nombre de contractions abdominales a été compté pendant 30 min chez des souris mâles adultes recevant différentes doses de prégabaline, de gabapentine, de morphine ou de placebo par voie intrapéritonéale 30 min avant 0,6 % d’acide acétique (10 mL·kg−1). L’effet antinociceptif de chaque dose de médicament a été déterminé en tant que pourcentage de réduction du nombre de contorsions induites par l’acide acétique. Les doses efficaces (DE) 20 %, 50 % et 80 % (DE20, DE50 et DE80) de chaque médicament ont été calculées à l’aide de l’analyse de régression linéaire des moindres carrés et les courbes de dose-réponse ont ensuite été comparées.
Résultats
La prégabaline, la gabapentine et la morphine ont produit un effet antinociceptif dépendant linéairement de la dose (coefficient de détermination [r2] > 0,9). Aucune différence n’a été observée entre les pentes des courbes de dose-réponse. La DE50 avec des intervalles de confiance de 95 % était de 17,1 mg·kg−1 (12,9 à 22,1) pour la prégabaline, 87,1 mg·kg−1 (45,8 à 129,8) pour la gabapentine et 0,2 mg·kg−1 (0,1 à 0,3) pour la morphine.
Conclusion
Dans ce modèle animal de douleur viscérale, les trois médicaments ont montré des courbes de dose-réponse parallèles. La prégabaline était cinq fois plus puissante que la gabapentine et 85 fois moins puissante que la morphine. Des ratios de puissance semblables pourraient s’appliquer dans la pratique clinique. Malgré certaines des limites des études animales, ce modèle pourrait être utile pour comparer de nouveaux analgésiques pour le traitement de la douleur viscérale.
Similar content being viewed by others
The anticonvulsants, pregabalin and gabapentin, are effective in pain treatment. Their anticonvulsant and analgesic effects are attributed to their binding to the alpha-2-delta-1 subunit of voltage-dependent Ca-channels that decrease calcium influx and consequently decrease the release of the neurotransmitters norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine.1 Pregabalin and gabapentin are prescribed in chronic pain states, such as post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic peripheral neuropathy,2 and they are used in complex pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia.3 In addition, animal studies have shown that these drugs could have an analgesic effect in acute pain treatment.4-6
Like most anticonvulsants, gabapentinoids have also been found to have an antinociceptive effect in visceral pain.7 Previous reports have shown that pregabalin inhibits trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced allodynia in rats, and gabapentin inhibits acetic acid-induced irritation in rats.8,9 Both pregabalin and gabapentin are recognized to reduce pain behaviour in colorectal distension and stress-induced visceral pain in rats.10,11
Visceral pain still constitutes a large portion of clinically treated pain. It is caused by intense activation of nociceptive primary afferent fibres and is characterized by referral hyperalgesia.12 Contrary to conventional belief, it is not a variant of somatic pain; it has an inflammatory component and differs in neurological mechanisms and transmission pathways.12 The acetic acid-induced writhing response in rodents is probably the best model of visceral pain, and it is considered to predict human response to pain.7,13 Consequently, this model is widely used as a test to evaluate and compare efficacy of new drugs in visceral pain treatment.7,9,13-18 The writhing responses reflect peritoneovisceral pain, because acetic acid directly activates both visceral and somatic nociceptors that innervate the peritoneum. This model also induces inflammation in the subcutaneous and muscular layers of the abdominal wall as well as in the subdiaphragmatic visceral organs.17
Gabapentin has been shown to be less potent than pregabalin in many pain models. The purpose of the present study is to quantify this potency ratio in a simple well-established visceral pain model. Therefore, our main objective was to establish dose-response relationships for pregabalin and gabapentin, compare them to morphine, a reference drug, using an acetic acid-induced writhing model of visceral pain.
Methods
Animals
The study protocol (Ka-90/123) was approved in March 2011 by the Animal Research Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (Deputy of Research, Kerman, Iran) in accordance with internationally accepted principles for laboratory animal use and care (European Economic Community Directive of 1986; 86/609/EEC).
Male NMRI (Naval Medical Research Institute) mice weighing 25-35 g were used in the study. They were housed four or five per cage at a mean (standard deviation) controlled temperature of 22 (2)°C and on a 12-hr light-dark cycle with free access to food and water. The animals were used for one procedure only and were humanely killed under anesthesia with diethyl-ether after the observation period. The experiments were performed on light cycle from 8 a.m.-12 p.m.
Acetic acid-induced writhing
The animal model considered clinically relevant to intestinal pain in humans is acetic acid-induced visceral contractions in mice.15,19 In our study, the animals were placed in individual polypropylene transparent boxes and allowed to habituate to laboratory surroundings for 30 min. The mice were restrained for intraperitoneal injection and held with their ventrum exposed. At that point, 0.6% acetic acid 10 mL·kg−1 was injected intraperitoneally (ip) into the lower right quadrant of the abdominal cavity at an angle of 30° and inserted to an approximate depth of 5 mm. Immediately after injection, the mice were observed for writhing behaviour. The writhing reflex is characterized by the presence of abdominal muscle contractions associated with inward outstretching of the hind limbs, a hind paw reflex, or whole body extension.7,9,14,17,20 The number of writhing reflexes, a measure of visceral pain, were recorded for a 30-min period.20
Drugs and experimental protocol
The drugs used in the study were pregabalin (Hetero Drugs Limited, India), gabapentin (Park Davis Company, Italy), and morphine sulfate (Temad, Iran).
All drugs were freshly dissolved in normal saline and injected 30 min before injecting the acetic acid. The pH of all drug solutions was controlled and did not differ from that of normal saline. The acetic acid (Sigma) was dissolved in distilled water. The treated groups received pregabalin (2-200 mg·kg−1), gabapentin (5-200 mg·kg−1), and morphine (0.1-5 mg·kg−1) ip.
Initially, a control group (n = 8) received normal saline before the acetic acid test, and then dose-response curves were obtained using five to seven different doses of gabapentin, pregabalin, and morphine, given sequentially. The maximum doses of gabapentin and morphine selected were 200 and 5 mg·kg−1, respectively, based on similar studies,4,9,14,16 while the maximum dose for pregabalin, which was novel in this model, was presumed to be 200 mg·kg−1.8 The dose used for the dose-response data was the maximum dose and simple divisions (½, ¼ …) of that dose. Dilutions were made in normal saline so that a volume of 1/100 of mouse body weight would be injected. For example, the volume required for a 32-g mouse was 0.32 mL. Data collection was continued until six mice received each dose. In an earlier part of our protocol, a preliminary experiment revealed that the injection of gabapentin 300 mg·kg−1 produced the same effect as 200 mg·kg−1, while 400 mg·kg−1 was toxic. Accordingly, the dose-response curve for gabapentin was obtained by using doses ranging from 5-200 mg·kg−1. The same procedure was implemented for pregabalin and morphine. The dose ranges used for pregabalin and for morphine were 2-200 mg·kg−1 and 0.1-5 mg·kg−1, respectively. Constructing an adequate dose-response curve requires a coefficient of determination r2 ≥ 0.9; therefore, the doses occasionally needed additional subdivisions to achieve the best fit. A laboratory collaborator, who was unaware of the dose given to the animal, counted the number of writhes. The collaborator could not possibly predict or expect the number of writhes because all dilutions were prepared daily, and he did not know which dilutions were given to which specific mouse.
Analgesic effect was quantified as the percent reduction in the number of writhes produced by each drug dose. For a given dose, the percent effect (%E) was calculated as follows: %E = [(number of writhes in control − number of writhes with that dose) / number of writhes in control] × 100.
The %E was used to establish a dose-response relationship. The drug doses were first transformed into base 10 logarithms and plotted on the x-axis of a Cartesian system, while the corresponding %E of each dose was plotted on the y-axis.Footnote 1The number of mice for each dose was set at six according to similar isobolographic studies.5,6,17
Statistical analysis
The results of the six mice were shown as mean [standard error of the mean (SEM)], and the slopes of dose-response lines were compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons post hoc test. A least-square linear regression analysis of the log dose-response curves allowed the calculation of the dose that produced 20, 50, and 80% of effect (ED20, ED50, and ED80, respectively) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and respective equation, according to Motulsky’s method.1 Statistical analyses were done using the specialized software, GraphPad Prism 5 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). A P value < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
Results
Data from 110 mice were analyzed. The injection of ip acetic acid produced evident writhing behaviour in the control group with 60 (4) contractions during 30 min of the experiment. The linear regression showed a dose-dependent effect with an adequate coefficient of determination (r2) for all three drugs. The dose-response equations for the three drugs were as follows:
pregabalin: %E = 37.45.log(dose) + 3.83; r2 = 0.98;
gabapentin: %E = 42.69.log(dose) − 32.80; r2 = 0.93;
morphine: %E = 39.85.log(dose) + 75.05; r2 = 0.98,
where log(dose) is the base 10 logarithm of the dose expressed in log(dose).
In the dose range used, the effects (%E) produced by the three drugs were: pregabalin 20-95%; gabapentin 2-65%; and morphine 35-99% (Figure). All effective doses of pregabalin (ED20, ED50, and ED80) were significantly more than the respective effective doses of gabapentin and less than the respective effective doses of morphine (P < 0.05) (Table). The dose-response curves did not deviate significantly from parallelism, and the slopes for pregabalin, gabapentin, and morphine with 95% CI were: 37.4 (30.9 to 43.9), 42.7 (23.1 to 64.2), and 39.8 (30.5 to 49.2), respectively (Figure).
Discussion
Pregabalin, gabapentin, and morphine produced a dose-dependent analgesic effect in an acetic acid-induced visceral pain model in mice. The order of analgesic potency in terms of ED50 was morphine > pregabalin > gabapentin. Morphine had 85 times the potency of pregabalin, and pregabalin was five times more potent than gabapentin. Previously, pregabalin has been reported as being three times more potent than gabapentin, specifically, in a hot-plate acute model of pain, in allodynia after spinal cord injury, and also in a carrageenan model of peripheral inflammation.6,21,22 Similar results were obtained in clinical treatment of pain after acute spinal cord injury and in treatment of irritable bowel syndrome where pregabalin was two to ten times more potent than gabapentin.23 It is well accepted that the efficacy and relative potency of drugs depend on the nature of pain. Indeed, the dose of gabapentin was four times greater than pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia, whereas it was six times greater in neuropathic pain.24
Similar slopes of dose-response curves do not necessarily indicate the existence of the same mechanisms of action, but it is already established that pregabalin and gabapentin exert their analgesic effect through the same site of action.1,23 Although different slopes point to different mechanisms, the opposite is not true. Morphine has a different mechanism of action than gabapentinoids, but in the model studies, the dose-response relationships were parallel. The higher maximum effect achieved by pregabalin and the difference in potency can be attributed to a higher availability and affinity of pregabalin for alpha-2-delta-1 subunits of calcium channels involved in visceral pain transmission1 or due to a wider distribution of these channels in the central nervous system.25 Nevertheless, two substances can have a combination of different availabilities and different sites of action that result in similar slopes on the dose-response curves. This is the case with morphine, since the slope of the morphine dose-response curve does not appear to be significantly different from the other two agents.
The acetic acid-induced writhing test indicates utility7 for clinically relevant intestinal pain in humans, especially because of the correlation found between the ED50 values in this test and analgesic doses in humans.19,26,27 This test is a highly sensitive visceral model in pain assessment because it also works for weak analgesics,19 and therefore, it is suitable for comparison of new drugs and sifting molecules, the pharmacodynamics of which are unknown.19 Viscerosomatic responses can also be evoked by colorectal distension, but we chose a writhing test since colonic distension has a lower degree of inflammation and is more conducive for specific abdominal pain associated with altered colonic sensitivity such as in irritable bowel syndrome.10,11,23,28
Availability and ease of management were the main reasons for using mice instead of rats7,14-18 and intraperitoneal injection instead of other routes of administration. The duration of the test was set at 30 min to reduce variability and obtain a rapid result. Although this procedure is a well-established visceral pain model, the intraperitoneal injection of drugs does not exactly simulate the clinical reality of drug administration. Considering the objective of the study, we preferred all these limitations over performing a difficult model. The ED50 of morphine found in this study (ED50 = 0.23 mg·kg−1) was nearly equal to that (ED50 = 0.25 mg·kg−1) found in the previous study by Romero et al. who adopted the same method and dose range.16
In conclusion, in this simple well-established model, ED ratios determine the relative potency that may be useful to quantify the proportion of clinically required drug dose for visceral pain. Therefore, despite the limitations of animal studies, including route of administration, species differences, duration of test, and dosage, in our view, this model could be used to characterize and define the effect of new analgesics in visceral pain treatment and could help in the development of drug selection strategies in clinical practice.
Notes
Motulsky H, Christopoulos A. Fitting Models to Biological Data using Linear and Nonlinear Regression. A Practical Guide to Curve Fitting. San Diego, CA: Graphpad Software Inc., 2003, www.graphpad.com.
References
Field MJ, Cox PJ, Stott E, et al. Identification of the alpha2-delta-1 subunit of voltage-dependent calcium channels as a molecular target for pain mediating the analgesic actions of pregabalin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006; 103: 17537-42.
Finnerup NB, Sindrup SH, Jensen TS. The evidence for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Pain 2010; 150: 573-81.
Tzellos TG, Toulis KA, Goulis DG, et al. Gabapentin and pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. J Clin Pharm Ther 2010; 35: 639-56.
Meymandi MS, Sepehri G, Mobasher M. Gabapentin enhances the analgesic response to morphine in acute model of pain in male rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2006; 85: 185-9.
Luszczki JJ, Kolacz A, Wojda E, Czuczwar M, Przesmycki K, Czuczwar SJl. Synergistic interaction of gabapentin with tiagabine in the hot-plate test in mice: an isobolographic analysis. Pharmacol Rep 2009; 61: 459-67.
Luszczki JJ. Dose-response relationship analysis of pregabalin doses and their antinociceptive effects in hot-plate test in mice. Pharmacol Rep 2010; 62: 942-8.
Stepanovic-Petrovic RM, Tomic MA, Vuckovic SM, et al. The antinociceptive effects of anticonvulsants in a mouse visceral pain model. Anesth Analg 2008; 106: 1897-903.
Diop L, Raymond F, Fargeau H, Petoux F, Chovet M, Doherty AM. Pregabalin (CI-1008) inhibits the trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced chronic colonic allodynia in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2002; 302: 1013-22.
Feng Y, Cui M, Willis WD. Gabapentin markedly reduces acetic acid-induced visceral nociception. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 729-33.
O’Mahony SM, Coelho AM, Fitzgerald P, et al. The effects of gabapentin in two animal models of co-morbid anxiety and visceral hypersensitivity. Eur J Pharmacol 2011; 667: 169-74.
Ravnefjord A, Brusberg M, Larsson H, Lindstrom E, Martinez V. Effects of pregabalin on visceral pain responses and colonic compliance in rats. Br J Pharmacol 2008; 155: 407-16.
Cervero F, Laird JM. Visceral pain. Lancet 1999; 353: 2145-8.
Le Bars D, Gozariu M, Cadden SW. Critical analysis of animal models of acute pain. II (French). Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2001; 20: 452-70.
Meymandi MS, Sepehri G. Gabapentin action and interaction on the antinociceptive effect of morphine on visceral pain in mice. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008; 25: 129-34.
Reichert JA, Daughters RS, Rivard R, Simone DA. Peripheral and preemptive opioid antinociception in a mouse visceral pain model. Pain 2001; 89: 221-7.
Romero A, Miranda HF, Puig MM. Analysis of the opioid-opioid combinations according to the nociceptive stimulus in mice. Pharmacol Res 2010; 61: 511-8.
Satyanarayana PS, Jain NK, Singh A, Kulkarni SK. Isobolographic analysis of interaction between cyclooxygenase inhibitors and tramadol in acetic acid-induced writhing in mice. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2004; 28: 641-9.
Stevenson GW, Cormier J, Mercer H, et al. Targeting pain-depressed behaviors in preclinical assays of pain and analgesia: drug effects on acetic acid-depressed locomotor activity in ICR mice. Life Sci 2009; 85: 309-15.
Le Bars D, Gozariu M, Cadden SW. Animal models of nociception. Pharmacol Rev 2001; 53: 597-652.
Mogil JS, Kest B, Sadowski B, Belknap JK. Differential genetic mediation of sensitivity to morphine in genetic models of opiate antinociception: influence of nociceptive assay. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996; 276: 532-44.
Hurley RW, Chatterjea D, Rose Feng M, Taylor CP, Hammond DL. Gabapentin and pregabalin can interact synergistically with naproxen to produce antihyperalgesia. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 1263-73.
Tanabe M, Ono K, Honda M, Ono H. Gabapentin and pregabalin ameliorate mechanical hypersensitivity after spinal cord injury in mice. Eur J Pharmacol 2009; 609: 65-8.
Gale JD, Houghton LA. Alpha 2 delta (alpha(2)delta) ligands, gabapentin and pregabalin: what is the evidence for potential use of these ligands in irritable bowel syndrome. Front Pharmacol 2011; 2: 28.
Tzellos TG, Papazisis G, Amaniti E, Kouvelas D. Efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin for neuropathic pain in spinal-cord injury: an evidence-based evaluation of the literature. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64: 851-8.
Bian F, Li Z, Offord J, et al. Calcium channel alpha2-delta type 1 subunit is the major binding protein for pregabalin in neocortex, hippocampus, amygdala, and spinal cord: an ex vivo autoradiographic study in alpha2-delta type 1 genetically modified mice. Brain Res 2006; 1075: 68-80.
Dubinsky B, Gebre-Mariam S, Capetola RJ, Rosenthale ME. The antialgesic drugs: human therapeutic correlates of their potency in laboratory animal models of hyperalgesia. Agents Actions 1987; 20: 50-60.
Collier HO, Dinneen LC, Johnson CA, Schneider C. The abdominal constriction response and its suppression by analgesic drugs in the mouse. Br J Pharmacol Chemother 1968; 32: 295-310.
Houghton LA, Fell C, Whorwell PJ, Jones I, Sudworth DP, Gale JD. Effect of a second-generation alpha2delta ligand (pregabalin) on visceral sensation in hypersensitive patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gut 2007; 56: 1218-25.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their sincere gratitude to Hetero Drugs Limited for providing the drugs. This work is part of a PhD thesis and has been supported by Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Funding
Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Author contributions
Manzumeh Shamsi Meymandi designed the study, wrote the protocol, contributed to the acquisition of data, and conducted the statistical analysis. Fariborz Keyhanfar interpreted the findings, contributed to the study design, provided summaries of previous research studies, and revised the intellectual content of the manuscript. Manzumeh Shamsi Meymandi and Fariborz Keyhanfar were responsible for the study’s conception and were involved with manuscript preparation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shamsi Meymandi, M., Keyhanfar, F. Relative potency of pregabalin, gabapentin, and morphine in a mouse model of visceral pain. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 60, 44–49 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-012-9813-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-012-9813-6