Studies on behavioral regulations of morphine tolerance in rats

Opioids remain the drugs of choice in chronic pain treatment, but opioid tolerance, defined as a decrease in analgesic effect after prolonged or repeated use, dramatically limits their clinical utility. Opioid tolerance has classically been studied by implanting spinal catheters in animals for drug administration. This procedure has significant morbidity and mortality, as well as causing an inflammatory response which decreases the potency of opioid analgesia and possibly affects tolerance development. Therefore, we developed and validated a new method, intermittent lumbar puncture (Dautzenberg et al.), for the study of opioid analgesia and tolerance. Using this method, opioid tolerance was reliably induced without detectable morbidity. The dose of morphine needed to induce analgesia and tolerance using this method was about 100-fold lower than that required when using an intrathecal catheter. Only slight inflammation was found at the injection site, dissipated within seven mm. ^ DAMGO, an opioid μ receptor agonist, has been reported to inhibit morphine tolerance, but results from different studies are inconclusive. We evaluated the effect of DAMGO on morphine tolerance using our newly-developed ILP method, as well as other intrathecal catheter paradigms. We found that co-administration of sub-analgesic DAMGO with morphine using ILP did not inhibit morphine tolerance, but instead blocked the analgesic effects of morphine. Tolerance to morphine still developed. Tolerance to morphine can only be blocked by sub-analgesic dose of DAMGO when administered in a lumbar catheter, but not in cervical catheter settings. ^ Finally, we evaluated the effects of Gabapentin (GBP) on analgesia and morphine tolerance. We demonstrated that GBP enhanced analgesia mediated by both subanalgesic and analgesic doses of morphine although GBP itself was not analgesic. GBP increased potency and efficacy of morphine. GBP inhibited the expression, but not the development, of morphine tolerance. GBP blocked tolerance to analgesic morphine but not to subanalgesic morphine. GBP reversed the expression of morphine tolerance even after tolerance was established. These studies may begin to provide new insights into mechanisms of morphine tolerance development and improve clinical chronic pain management. ^

ATTITUDES TOWARD AND UTILIZATION OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING FOR CHROMOSOME ANEUPLOIDY AMONG OB/GYNS

Prenatal diagnosis is traditionally made via invasive procedures such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). However, both procedures carry a risk of complications, including miscarriage. Many groups have spent years searching for a way to diagnose a chromosome aneuploidy without putting the fetus or the mother at risk for complications. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidy became commercially available in the fall of 2011, with detection rates similar to those of invasive procedures for the common autosomal aneuploidies (Palomaki et al., 2011; Ashoor et al. 2012; Bianchi et al. 2012). Eventually NIPT may become the diagnostic standard of care and reduce invasive procedure-related losses (Palomaki et al., 2011). The integration of NIPT into clinical practice has potential to revolutionize prenatal diagnosis; however, it also raises some crucial issues for practitioners. Now that the test is clinically available, no studies have looked at the physicians that will be ordering the testing or referring patients to practitioners who do. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of OB/GYN’s and how they are incorporating the test into clinical practice. Our study shows that most physicians are offering this new, non-invasive technology to their patients, and that their practices were congruent with the literature and available professional society opinions. Those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients would like more literature on the topic as well as instructive guidelines from their professional societies. Additionally, this study shows that the practices and attitudes of MFMs and OBs differ. Our population feels that the incorporation of NIPT will change their practices by lowering the amount of invasive procedures, possibly replacing maternal serum screening, and that it will simplify prenatal diagnosis. However, those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients are not quite sure how the test will affect their clinical practice. From this study we are able to glean how physicians are incorporating this new technology into their practice and how they feel about the addition to their repertoire of tests. This knowledge gives insight as to how to best move forward with the quickly changing field of prenatal diagnosis.