Muscle-Type Nicotinic Receptor Blockade by Diethylamine, the Hydrophilic Moiety of Lidocaine

Lidocaine bears in its structure both an aromatic ring and a terminal amine, which can be protonated at physiological pH, linked by an amide group. Since lidocaine causes multiple inhibitory actions on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), this work was aimed to determine the inhibitory effects of diethylamine (DEA), a small molecule resembling the hydrophilic moiety of lidocaine, on Torpedo marmorata nAChRs microtransplanted to Xenopus oocytes. Similarly to lidocaine, DEA reversibly blocked acetylcholine-elicited currents (IACh) in a dose-dependent manner (IC50 close to 70 μM), but unlike lidocaine, DEA did not affect IACh desensitization. IACh inhibition by DEA was more pronounced at negative potentials, suggesting an open-channel blockade of nAChRs, although roughly 30% inhibition persisted at positive potentials, indicating additional binding sites outside the pore. DEA block of nAChRs in the resting state (closed channel) was confirmed by the enhanced IACh inhibition when pre-applying DEA before its co-application with ACh, as compared with solely DEA and ACh co-application. Virtual docking assays provide a plausible explanation to the experimental observations in terms of the involvement of different sets of drug binding sites. So, at the nAChR transmembrane (TM) domain, DEA and lidocaine shared binding sites within the channel pore, giving support to their open-channel blockade; besides, lidocaine, but not DEA, interacted with residues at cavities among the M1, M2, M3, and M4 segments of each subunit and also at intersubunit crevices. At the extracellular (EC) domain, DEA and lidocaine binding sites were broadly distributed, which aids to explain the closed channel blockade observed. Interestingly, some DEA clusters were located at the α-γ interphase of the EC domain, in a cavity near the orthosteric binding site pocket; by contrast, lidocaine contacted with all α-subunit loops conforming the ACh binding site, both in α-γ and α-δ and interphases, likely because of its larger size. Together, these results indicate that DEA mimics some, but not all, inhibitory actions of lidocaine on nAChRs and that even this small polar molecule acts by different mechanisms on this receptor. The presented results contribute to a better understanding of the structural determinants of nAChR modulation.

A metasynthesis of qualitative studies regarding opinions and perceptions about barriers and determinants of health services’ accessibility in economic migrants

Background: Access to health services is an important health determinant. New research in health equity is required, especially amongst economic migrants from developing countries. Studies conducted on the use of health services by migrant populations highlight existing gaps in understanding which factors affect access to these services from a qualitative perspective. We aim to describe the views of the migrants regarding barriers and determinants of access to health services in the international literature (1997–2011). Methods: A systematic review was conducted for Qualitative research papers (English/Spanish) published in 13 electronic databases. A selection of articles that accomplished the inclusion criteria and a quality evaluation of the studies were carried out. The findings of the selected studies were synthesised by means of metasynthesis using different analysis categories according to Andersen’s conceptual framework of access and use of health services and by incorporating other emergent categories. Results: We located 3,025 titles, 36 studies achieved the inclusion criteria. After quality evaluation, 28 articles were definitively synthesised. 12 studies (46.2%) were carried out in the U.S and 11 studies (42.3%) dealt with primary care services. The participating population varied depending mainly on type of host country. Barriers were described, such as the lack of communication between health services providers and migrants, due to idiomatic difficulties and cultural differences. Other barriers were linked to the economic system, the health service characteristics and the legislation in each country. This situation has consequences for the lack of health control by migrants and their social vulnerability. Conclusions: Economic migrants faced individual and structural barriers to the health services in host countries, especially those with undocumented situation and those experimented idiomatic difficulties. Strategies to improve the structures of health systems and social policies are needed.