Free
Meeting Abstracts  |   December 1998
Interaction of Intrathecally Infused Morphine and Lidocaine in Rats (Part II)  : Effects on the Development of Tolerance to Morphine
Author Notes
  • (Saito) Associate Professor.
  • (Kaneko) Instructor.
  • (Kirihara) Research Associate.
  • (Sakura) Assistant Professor.
  • (Kosaka) Professor and Chairman.
Article Information
Meeting Abstracts   |   December 1998
Interaction of Intrathecally Infused Morphine and Lidocaine in Rats (Part II)  : Effects on the Development of Tolerance to Morphine
Anesthesiology 12 1998, Vol.89, 1464-1470. doi:
Anesthesiology 12 1998, Vol.89, 1464-1470. doi:
PATIENTS suffering from chronic pain often require long-lasting use of opioids or local anesthetics via intrathecal or epidural routes. The chronic use of opioids is associated with tolerance, leading to decreased analgesic effects, and associated increased dosing and side effects. [1] Reports have demonstrated the development of opioid tolerance to antinociceptive effects in the spinal cord. [2-5] There are several ways by which local anesthetics could influence opioid tolerance. The development of opioid tolerance was associated with changes in neuronal intracellular calcium levels. [6-8] Local anesthetics depress the voltage-gated calcium current and intracellular calcium ion level in neurons. [9,10] Those observations suggest that local anesthetics might modulate the development of opioid tolerance through those actions sites around the spinal cord. However, the effect of local anesthetics on the development of tolerance to opioids has not been studied.
We have demonstrated, in the companion paper, that synergy between morphine and lidocaine exists during a 6-day intrathecal infusion. Therefore, we can assume that a decrease of required opioid caused by a synergistic analgesic action when opioids are used in combination with local anesthetic may lead to decreased development of tolerance because the development of tolerance depends on receptor occupancy. [11] 
The aim of this study was to determine if the presence of lidocaine in a continuous intrathecal infusion with morphine altered the development of tolerance to somatic and visceral antinociception of morphine in rats.
Materials and Methods
This study was approved by the Animal Research and Use Committee of Shimane Medical University. Full details of the methods, including initial preparation and nociceptive tests, are presented in the companion paper. Methods are briefly described here.
Male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 14 equal groups (n = 7). One of the following regimens was intrathecally infused for 6 days. The mean body weight of animals before the morphine challenge was noted in parentheses.
1. Morphine hydrochloride; 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(318 +/− 14 [+/− SD] g), 1 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(312 +/− 16 g), 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(303 +/− 8 g), 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] g-1[middle dot] h-1(308 +/− 15 g), 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(318 +/− 19 g).
2. Lidocaine hydrochloride; 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(307 +/− 16 g), 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg (-1)[middle dot] h-1(304 +/− 8 g), 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg (-1)[middle dot] h-1(308 +/− 12 g), 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(318 +/− 16 g).
3. Combination (morphine hydrochloride + lidocaine hydrochloride); 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(319 +/− 17 g), 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(315 +/− 12 g), 0.75 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(319 +/− 12 g), 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(317 +/− 16 g).
4. Normal saline (311 +/− 18 g).
After 6 days of continuous intrathecal infusion, a time-response curve after an intrathecal morphine challenge test was constructed to assess the magnitude of tolerance. On the evening of day 6, the PE-20 part of the intrathecal catheter was cut, and 10 [micro sign]l of normal saline was injected to clear the residual volume of morphine in the catheter. Fifteen hours later, the tail flick (TF) and colorectal distension (CD) tests were performed before and 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180 min after the bolus intrathecal injection of morphine (5 [micro sign]g/10 [micro sign]l).
Tail flick latency and CD threshold were converted to percentage maximum possible effect (%MPE) as defined in the companion paper. To evaluate the magnitude of morphine tolerance, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated from the time-response curve (%MPE) of the morphine challenge test using the trapezoidal integration method. All data are presented as mean +/− SD. Changes in %MPE after intrathecal injection were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures followed by Scheffe's post hoc test. Differences in AUC between groups were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's test for post hoc comparison. A P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results
Ten of 98 rats were excluded from data analysis because of infusion or catheter failure, and two rats were excluded because of neurologic impairment or other health problems, resulting in a study population of 86 rats.
The baseline values (determined 15 h after catheter flush and just before morphine challenge) in the TF and CD tests were not significantly different among all groups, except for the group that received lidocaine 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1. After lidocaine infusion at 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1, the animals showed increased mean baseline values of 4.6 +/− 0.4 (+/− SD) s and 24.7 +/− 3.9 mmHg in the TF and CD tests, respectively, and those values were used for calculating %MPE. Slight motor impairment was shown in three of six rats after a 6-day infusion of lidocaine at 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1. However, no rats showed apparent motor impairment 15 h after the end of intrathecal infusion.
Challenge Test after Morphine Infusion
The increases of %MPEs as well as their duration in the TF and CD tests caused by morphine challenge were significantly smaller (P < 0.05) in the morphine infusion groups when compared with those in the saline infusion group (Figure 1). The magnitude of the inhibition was inversely associated with the amount of morphine, and that tendency was similar between TF and CD tests.
Figure 1. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 1 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 7), Mor 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. In Sal infusion group, %MPEs in the TF and CD tests increased to 100% for 30 min with a return to baseline values at 180 min. %MPEs in the TF and CD showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between groups with Mor 6 or Mor 10 and Sal groups from 10 min to 120 min, and also showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between Mor 1 and Sal groups from 60 min to 120 min but not from 10 min to 30 min. In Mor 10 infusion group, %MPE in the TF test was almost completely inhibited to less than 20 %MPE, but %MPE in the CD test demonstrated 40% at peak. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 1. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 1 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 7), Mor 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. In Sal infusion group, %MPEs in the TF and CD tests increased to 100% for 30 min with a return to baseline values at 180 min. %MPEs in the TF and CD showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between groups with Mor 6 or Mor 10 and Sal groups from 10 min to 120 min, and also showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between Mor 1 and Sal groups from 60 min to 120 min but not from 10 min to 30 min. In Mor 10 infusion group, %MPE in the TF test was almost completely inhibited to less than 20 %MPE, but %MPE in the CD test demonstrated 40% at peak. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 1. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 1 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 7), Mor 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. In Sal infusion group, %MPEs in the TF and CD tests increased to 100% for 30 min with a return to baseline values at 180 min. %MPEs in the TF and CD showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between groups with Mor 6 or Mor 10 and Sal groups from 10 min to 120 min, and also showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between Mor 1 and Sal groups from 60 min to 120 min but not from 10 min to 30 min. In Mor 10 infusion group, %MPE in the TF test was almost completely inhibited to less than 20 %MPE, but %MPE in the CD test demonstrated 40% at peak. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
×
Challenge Test after Lidocaine Infusion
In contrast, as shown in Figure 2, 6 days of lidocaine infusion caused no change in the morphine challenge effects from that seen in animals that received a saline infusion for 6 days. The peak (100 %MPE), duration of peak effect, and return to baseline values were all similar, even though, as shown in the companion paper, lidocaine infusion produced dose-dependent antinociception and tachyphylaxis.
Figure 2. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. Lid infusion groups caused no change in the time course effects, the peak (100 %MPE), and duration of peak effect, comparing with Sal infusion group. Time course change in %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests after morphine challenge showed a similar tendency in Lid infusion groups. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 2. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. Lid infusion groups caused no change in the time course effects, the peak (100 %MPE), and duration of peak effect, comparing with Sal infusion group. Time course change in %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests after morphine challenge showed a similar tendency in Lid infusion groups. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 2. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. Lid infusion groups caused no change in the time course effects, the peak (100 %MPE), and duration of peak effect, comparing with Sal infusion group. Time course change in %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests after morphine challenge showed a similar tendency in Lid infusion groups. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
×
Challenge Test after Morphine and Lidocaine Coinfusion
During the 6-day infusion studies, these three doses close to their ED50S-morphine 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1, lidocaine 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1, or morphine 0.75 + lidocaine 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg (-1)[middle dot] h-1-produced antinociceptive effect that was similar as seen in the AUC plots (inserts) in Figure 3. This therefore provided a consistent baseline for examination of the effects of a challenge dose of morphine. Despite their similar antinociceptive effects during infusion, Figure 3indicates that tolerance to somatic and visceral antinociception developed in the order of morphine, morphine + lidocaine, and lidocaine.
Figure 3. Comparison in time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g after the intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.75 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), which produced similar antinociceptive effects as shown by AUC for 6 days (inside panels). AUC plots (inserts) show that Mor 3, Lid 600, or Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 produced similar antinociceptive effects during the 6-day infusion. In the morphine challenge tests, %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests in Lid 600 group were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 90 min and those in Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 group were also higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 60 min. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 3. Comparison in time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g after the intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.75 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), which produced similar antinociceptive effects as shown by AUC for 6 days (inside panels). AUC plots (inserts) show that Mor 3, Lid 600, or Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 produced similar antinociceptive effects during the 6-day infusion. In the morphine challenge tests, %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests in Lid 600 group were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 90 min and those in Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 group were also higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 60 min. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 3. Comparison in time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g after the intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.75 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), which produced similar antinociceptive effects as shown by AUC for 6 days (inside panels). AUC plots (inserts) show that Mor 3, Lid 600, or Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 produced similar antinociceptive effects during the 6-day infusion. In the morphine challenge tests, %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests in Lid 600 group were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 90 min and those in Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 group were also higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 60 min. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Mor 3.
×
(Figure 4) demonstrates that the time-effect curves in both TF and CD tests for the coinfusion of morphine 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg (-1)[middle dot] h-1+ lidocaine 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1were almost comparable to those for the same dose of morphine (3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1) alone, indicating similar degrees of tolerance development. In contrast, the coinfused group showed greater antinociceptive effect (P < 0.05) than the morphine-infused group indicated by the AUC inserted in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. The time effect curves in TF and CD tests for Mor 3 + Lid 30 were similar to those for Mor 3, with regard to the onset and magnitude of peak effect and the duration of action despite the greater AUC in Mor 3 + Lid 30 infusion (P < 0.05) than Mor 3 infusion (inserts). Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Lid 30. **Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 4. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. The time effect curves in TF and CD tests for Mor 3 + Lid 30 were similar to those for Mor 3, with regard to the onset and magnitude of peak effect and the duration of action despite the greater AUC in Mor 3 + Lid 30 infusion (P < 0.05) than Mor 3 infusion (inserts). Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Lid 30. **Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 4. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. The time effect curves in TF and CD tests for Mor 3 + Lid 30 were similar to those for Mor 3, with regard to the onset and magnitude of peak effect and the duration of action despite the greater AUC in Mor 3 + Lid 30 infusion (P < 0.05) than Mor 3 infusion (inserts). Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Lid 30. **Significantly different from Mor 3.
×
When the low dose of morphine (0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg (-1)[middle dot] h-1) is used for intrathecal infusion, the infusion of morphine alone as well as the coinfusion of the same dose morphine with lidocaine 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1or lidocaine 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1showed no significant differences from saline infusion group in %MPEs in TF and CD tests in morphine challenge test (Figure 5). However, antinociceptive effects assessed by AUCs in TF and CD tests for 6-day infusion were significantly increased (P < 0.05) by the combination of lidocaine and that potentiation depended on the dose of lidocaine (Figure 5, insert).
Figure 5. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats received intrathecal infusion of Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3. #Significantly different from Lid 200. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3 + Lid 200.
Figure 5. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats received intrathecal infusion of Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3. #Significantly different from Lid 200. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3 + Lid 200.
Figure 5. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats received intrathecal infusion of Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3. #Significantly different from Lid 200. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3 + Lid 200.
×
Discussion
The significance of this study is that coinfused lidocaine could not directly attenuate the development of tolerance to morphine as shown in the challenge test after coinfusion of morphine and lidocaine in Figure 4. The lack of lidocaine effect on tolerance development was evident in the presence of both somatic and visceral noxious stimuli. It appears that lidocaine does not modulate the intracellular changes in the development of tolerance to morphine. The mechanisms responsible for the potentiated antinociceptive interaction between lidocaine and morphine appears to be different from those responsible for the development of tolerance.
Most agents, including other opioid agonists, [small alpha, Greek]2agonists, and cholecystokinin antagonists, which enhance opioid analgesia, [12,13] cause the cross-tolerance to morphine analgesia. [14,15] Lidocaine, however, did not cause cross-tolerance with morphine in this study, whereas lidocaine enhanced morphine antinociception. This is an important finding, demonstrating a clinical relevance of intrathecal or epidural coinfusion of local anesthetic with opioid. Even if lidocaine does not have a direct inhibition of development of morphine tolerance, the lack of cross-tolerance means that the drugs may be used together effectively and that lidocaine can produce analgesia in patients who have become tolerant.
There was no significant suppression of the antinociceptive effect in the morphine challenge test with or without coinfusion of lidocaine when a low dose of morphine (0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h (-1)) was infused, indicating no apparent spinal development of tolerance to that low-dose morphine. Of particular importance is that even such a low dose of morphine, which, by itself, produced neither antinociception nor tolerance, can produce synergistic antinociceptive effects when a sub-effective dose of lidocaine is coinfused with it. With higher doses of morphine that produce tolerance, coinfusion of morphine and lidocaine also produced potentiated antinociception but developed tolerance similar to that after the morphine infusion alone. When comparing the doses of morphine required for producing the same antinociceptive effect, the morphine dose was smaller in the lidocaine coinfused group than that in the morphine group, so the magnitude of tolerance to morphine was lower in the coinfused group. The observation may imply that, even if the development of tolerance to morphine is not directly altered by coadministered lidocaine, the ability of lidocaine to reduce the amount of morphine required may, by itself, reduce the likelihood of tolerance developing to morphine because the potentiated antinociception of morphine by lidocaine may contribute to the lower fractional occupancy of the total opioid receptor, which would be expected to cause the less-graded development of tolerance. [11] 
Those observations indicate an important direction for the combination opioids with local anesthetics to control the development of tolerance to opioids and produce satisfactory analgesia. The antinociceptive effect of morphine is potentiated by lidocaine depending on the dose of lidocaine as shown in the insert of Figure 5and in the companion paper. Therefore, we should chose the lowest dose of opioid at the beginning of the epidural or intrathecal coinfusion and keep the dose of opioid as small as possible by change the dose of local anesthetic to produce satisfactory analgesia because the development of tolerance depends on the dose of morphine and because a low dose of morphine may not develop apparent tolerance. One problem in increasing dose of local anesthetics is appearance of motor blocks, depending on the dose of local anesthetics. Considering motor block, bupivacaine and ropivacaine may prove even more effective for these combinations because these local anesthetics have stronger analgesic effects and less motor block than lidocaine. [16,17] 
Morphine tolerance was seen for both visceral and somatic stimuli with and without lidocaine coinfusion. However, the magnitude of morphine tolerance to visceral antinociception was less than that to somatic antinociception as indicated by greater %MPE in the CD test than in the TF test for the first 30 min in morphine challenge test after morphine infusion at 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1or 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(Figure 1). However, as shown in the companion paper, the degree of antinociceptive effect in the visceral test was less than that in the somatic test. We therefore do not know if the increased tolerance is simply a result of less receptor occupancy, as discussed previously, in different development of tolerance to different type of nociceptive noxious stimulus.
As shown in the companion paper, the antinociceptive effects of intrathecal infusion of lidocaine gradually decreased, suggesting the development of tachyphylaxis. [18] The influence of coinfused opioid on tachyphylaxis of local anesthetic should be considered in clinical use of a combination of opioid and local anesthetic. The antinociceptive effects after the intrathecal coinfusion appeared as the total output, including interaction of morphine and lidocaine antinociception, modulated tolerance of morphine, and modulated tachyphylaxis of lidocaine. However, this study did not perform the lidocaine challenge test after completing the intrathecal infusion because we focused on the influence of coinfusion on the development of morphine tolerance and could not do two challenge tests at one time. As the next step, further studies on tachyphylaxis of local anesthetics are necessary to establish the optimal doses for the combination of opioid and local anesthetics.
We conclude that the presence of lidocaine in combination with morphine to produce synergy does not reduce tolerance to morphine antinoniceptive effects nor develop cross-tolerance. The continuous intrathecal infusion of morphine induced tolerance to somatic and visceral antinociceptive effects in a dose-dependent fashion.
REFERENCES
Brown J KJ: Long-term outcome of opiate intrathecal infusion pumps: opiate requirements, symptoms, health status and patient satisfaction. Am Pain Soc Annu Meeting Abstr 1997; 16:893
Kalso EA, Sullivan AF, McQuay HJ, Dickenson AH, Roques BP: Cross-tolerance between mu opioid and alpha-2 adrenergic receptors, but not between mu and delta opioid receptors in the spinal cord of the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1993; 265-551-8
Russell RD, Leslie JB, Su YF, Watkins WD, Chang KJ: Continuous intrathecal opioid analgesia: Tolerance and cross-tolerance of mu and delta spinal opioid receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1987; 240:150-8
Stevens CW: Perspective on opioid tolerance from basic research: Behavioral studies after spinal administration in rodents. Cancer Surveys 1994; 21:25-47
Stevens CW, Yaksh TL: Time course characteristics of tolerance development to continuously infused antinociceptive agents in rat spinal cord. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1989; 251:216-23
Suematsu M, Ohnishi T, Shinno E, Maeda S, Matsumoto K, Sakuda M, Saito K: Effect of prolonged administration of clonidine on [3H]PN 200-110 and [125]omega-conotoxin binding in mouse brain. Neurosci Letter 1993; 163:193-6
Contreras E, Tamayo L, Amigo M: Calcium channel antagonists increase morphine-induced analgesia and antagonize morphine tolerance. Eur J Pharmacol 1988; 148:463-6
Bernstein MA, Welch SP: Alterations in L-type calcium channels in the brain and spinal cord of acutely treated and morphine-tolerant mice. Brain Res 1995; 696:83-8
Li YM, Wingrove DE, Too HP, Marnerakis M, Stimson ER, Strichartz GR, Maggio JE: Local anesthetics inhibit substance P binding and evoked increases in intracellular Ca2+. Anesthesiology 1995; 82:166-73
Sugiyama K, Muteki T: Local anesthetics depress the calcium current of rat sensory neurons in culture. Anesthesiology 1994; 80:1369-78
Stevens CW, Yaksh TL: Potency of infused spinal antinociceptive agents is inversely related to magnitude of tolerance after continuous infusion. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1989; 250:1-8
Watkins LR, Kinscheck IB, Mayer DJ: Potentiation of opiate analgesia and apparent reversal of morphine tolerance by proglumide. Science 1984; 224:395-6
Dourish CT, Hawley D, Iversen SD: Enhancement of morphine analgesia and prevention of morphine tolerance in the rat by the cholecystokinin antagonist L-364,718. Eur J Pharmacol 1988; 147:469-72
Vanderah TW, Bernstein RN, Yamamura HI, Hruby VJ, Porreca F: Enhancement of morphine antinociception by a CCKB antagonist in mice is mediated via opioid delta receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996; 278:212-9
Paul D, Tran JG: Differential cross-tolerance between analgesia produced by alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonists and receptor subtype selective opioid treatments. Eur J Pharmacol 1995; 272:111-4
Paech MJ: Epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section: a comparison of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lignocaine both with adrenaline. Anaesth Intensive Care 1988; 16:187-96
Cederholm I: Preliminary risk-benefit analysis of ropivacaine in labour and following surgery. Drug Safety 1997; 16:391-402
Mogensen T, Simonsen L, Scott NB, Henriksen JH, Kehlet H: Tachyphylaxis associated with repeated epidural injections of lidocaine is not related to changes in distribution or the rate of elimination from the epidural space. Anesth Analg 1989; 69:180-4
Figure 1. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 1 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 7), Mor 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. In Sal infusion group, %MPEs in the TF and CD tests increased to 100% for 30 min with a return to baseline values at 180 min. %MPEs in the TF and CD showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between groups with Mor 6 or Mor 10 and Sal groups from 10 min to 120 min, and also showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between Mor 1 and Sal groups from 60 min to 120 min but not from 10 min to 30 min. In Mor 10 infusion group, %MPE in the TF test was almost completely inhibited to less than 20 %MPE, but %MPE in the CD test demonstrated 40% at peak. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 1. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 1 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 7), Mor 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. In Sal infusion group, %MPEs in the TF and CD tests increased to 100% for 30 min with a return to baseline values at 180 min. %MPEs in the TF and CD showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between groups with Mor 6 or Mor 10 and Sal groups from 10 min to 120 min, and also showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between Mor 1 and Sal groups from 60 min to 120 min but not from 10 min to 30 min. In Mor 10 infusion group, %MPE in the TF test was almost completely inhibited to less than 20 %MPE, but %MPE in the CD test demonstrated 40% at peak. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 1. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 1 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 6 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 7), Mor 10 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. In Sal infusion group, %MPEs in the TF and CD tests increased to 100% for 30 min with a return to baseline values at 180 min. %MPEs in the TF and CD showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between groups with Mor 6 or Mor 10 and Sal groups from 10 min to 120 min, and also showed significant differences (P < 0.01) between Mor 1 and Sal groups from 60 min to 120 min but not from 10 min to 30 min. In Mor 10 infusion group, %MPE in the TF test was almost completely inhibited to less than 20 %MPE, but %MPE in the CD test demonstrated 40% at peak. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
×
Figure 2. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. Lid infusion groups caused no change in the time course effects, the peak (100 %MPE), and duration of peak effect, comparing with Sal infusion group. Time course change in %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests after morphine challenge showed a similar tendency in Lid infusion groups. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 2. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. Lid infusion groups caused no change in the time course effects, the peak (100 %MPE), and duration of peak effect, comparing with Sal infusion group. Time course change in %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests after morphine challenge showed a similar tendency in Lid infusion groups. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
Figure 2. Time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (left panel) and colorectal distension test (right panel) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Lid 1000 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or saline (Sal)(n = 7) for 6 days. Lid infusion groups caused no change in the time course effects, the peak (100 %MPE), and duration of peak effect, comparing with Sal infusion group. Time course change in %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests after morphine challenge showed a similar tendency in Lid infusion groups. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Sal.
×
Figure 3. Comparison in time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g after the intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.75 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), which produced similar antinociceptive effects as shown by AUC for 6 days (inside panels). AUC plots (inserts) show that Mor 3, Lid 600, or Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 produced similar antinociceptive effects during the 6-day infusion. In the morphine challenge tests, %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests in Lid 600 group were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 90 min and those in Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 group were also higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 60 min. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 3. Comparison in time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g after the intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.75 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), which produced similar antinociceptive effects as shown by AUC for 6 days (inside panels). AUC plots (inserts) show that Mor 3, Lid 600, or Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 produced similar antinociceptive effects during the 6-day infusion. In the morphine challenge tests, %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests in Lid 600 group were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 90 min and those in Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 group were also higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 60 min. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 3. Comparison in time course of effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g after the intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.75 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 150 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), which produced similar antinociceptive effects as shown by AUC for 6 days (inside panels). AUC plots (inserts) show that Mor 3, Lid 600, or Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 produced similar antinociceptive effects during the 6-day infusion. In the morphine challenge tests, %MPEs in both the TF and CD tests in Lid 600 group were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 90 min and those in Mor 0.75 + Lid 150 group were also higher (P < 0.01) than those in Mor 3 group from 10 to 60 min. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Mor 3.
×
Figure 4. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. The time effect curves in TF and CD tests for Mor 3 + Lid 30 were similar to those for Mor 3, with regard to the onset and magnitude of peak effect and the duration of action despite the greater AUC in Mor 3 + Lid 30 infusion (P < 0.05) than Mor 3 infusion (inserts). Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Lid 30. **Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 4. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. The time effect curves in TF and CD tests for Mor 3 + Lid 30 were similar to those for Mor 3, with regard to the onset and magnitude of peak effect and the duration of action despite the greater AUC in Mor 3 + Lid 30 infusion (P < 0.05) than Mor 3 infusion (inserts). Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Lid 30. **Significantly different from Mor 3.
Figure 4. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats that received intrathecal infusion of Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), or Mor 3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 30 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. The time effect curves in TF and CD tests for Mor 3 + Lid 30 were similar to those for Mor 3, with regard to the onset and magnitude of peak effect and the duration of action despite the greater AUC in Mor 3 + Lid 30 infusion (P < 0.05) than Mor 3 infusion (inserts). Data are presented as mean +/− SD. #Significantly different from baseline value. *Significantly different from Lid 30. **Significantly different from Mor 3.
×
Figure 5. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats received intrathecal infusion of Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3. #Significantly different from Lid 200. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3 + Lid 200.
Figure 5. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats received intrathecal infusion of Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3. #Significantly different from Lid 200. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3 + Lid 200.
Figure 5. Comparison in time course effects on %MPE in tail flick test (panel A) and colorectal distension test (panel B) after intrathecal challenge test with morphine (Mor) 5 [micro sign]g in rats received intrathecal infusion of Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), lidocaine (Lid) 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6), Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 200 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6) or Mor 0.3 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1+ Lid 600 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1(n = 6). Inside panels represent area under the curve (AUC) calculated from time-effect curve in intrathecal infusion for 6 days. Data are presented as mean +/− SD. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3. #Significantly different from Lid 200. *Significantly different from Mor 0.3 + Lid 200.
×