Dataset Information

Systemic ropivacaine diminishes pain sensitization processes: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Ropivacaine is a local anesthetic widely used for regional anesthesia. One of its advantages is low toxicity at plasma concentrations reached systemically during continuous peripheral or central nervous block. The objective of this study was to test the effect of systemic ropivacaine on pain, hyperalgesia, dynamic allodynia, and flare response.

Methods

This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study was carried out in at the Clinical Trials Centre, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Twenty healthy male volunteers were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were contraindications or hypersensitivity to local anesthetics, vulnerable subjects (intellectually or mental impaired), drug, alcohol or nicotine abuse, known peripheral neuropathies, diabetes mellitus and/or congestive heart disease. Ropivacaine and saline were infused intravenously during a subcutaneous electrical stimulation. The stimulation software adjusted the stimulus strength according to the rating on a numeric rating scale (NRS; 0-10) maintaining a NRS of 5. Areas of punctate hyperalgesia, dynamic allodynia, and flare response were measured before and after the infusion.

Results

The area of hyperalgesia increased significantly with saline (303 ± 380%, P < 0.05) and ropivacaine (186 ± 137%, P < 0.05). The area of allodynia (253 ± 299%, P < 0.05) and flare response (112 ± 24%, P < 0.05) increased only during the placebo infusion.

Conclusion

The results of this study imply that systemic ropivacaine may diminish pain sensitization processes.

SUBMITTER: Haller Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4108022 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and rationaleAtypical antipsychotics exhibit metabolic side effects including diabetes mellitus and obesity. The adverse events are preceded by acute worsening of oral glucose tolerance (oGTT) along with reduced plasma free fatty acids (FFA) and leptin in animal models. It is unclear whether the same acute effects occur in humans.Methodology/principal findingsA double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial was conducted to examine the potential metabolic effects of olanzapine in healthy volunteers. Participants included male (8) and female (7) subjects [18-30 years old, BMI 18.5-25]. Subjects received placebo or olanzapine (10 mg/day) for three days prior to oGTT testing. Primary endpoints included measurement of plasma leptin, oral glucose tolerance, and plasma free fatty acids (FFA). Secondary metabolic endpoints included: triglycerides, total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, heart rate, blood pressure, body weight and BMI. Olanzapine increased glucose Area Under the Curve (AUC) by 42% (2808±474 vs. 3984±444 mg/dl·min; P = 0.0105) during an oGTT. Fasting plasma leptin and triglycerides were elevated 24% (Leptin: 6.8±1.3 vs. 8.4±1.7 ng/ml; P = 0.0203) and 22% (Triglycerides: 88.9±10.1 vs. 108.2±11.6 mg/dl; P = 0.0170), whereas FFA and HDL declined by 32% (FFA: 0.38±0.06 vs. 0.26±0.04 mM; P = 0.0166) and 11% (54.2±4.7 vs. 48.9±4.3 mg/dl; P = 0.0184), respectively after olanzapine. Other measures were unchanged.Conclusions/significanceOlanzapine exerts some but not all of the early endocrine/metabolic changes observed in rodent models of the metabolic side effects, and this suggest that antipsychotic effects are not limited to perturbations in glucose metabolism alone. Future prospective clinical studies should focus on identifying which reliable metabolic alterations might be useful as potential screening tools in assessing patient susceptibility to weight gain and diabetes caused by atypical antipsychotics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00741026.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mug budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64(R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64(R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90%CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. RESULTS: All the enrolled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUC(i) (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. CONCLUSION: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No Eudra CT: 2005-003727-39.