Cited by 21Pain Management and Opioid UsePain Mechanisms and TreatmentsAnesthesia and Pain Management

Morphine dosing strategy plays a key role in the generation and duration of the produced antinociceptive tolerance

Open access
Paul, Alok Kumar, Gueven, Nuri, Dietis, Nikolas·2017·Neuropharmacology

Abstract

Antinociceptive tolerance after repetitive administration of morphine severely limits its clinical use. Despite increased mechanistic understanding of morphine tolerance, little is known about the influence of dosing regimens in its development. We hypothesized that the starting dose of morphine, dosing frequency and dose increments, influence antinociception and the manifestation of antinociceptive tolerance in rats. Male rats were randomly divided into four groups with different intermittent starting-doses of daily morphine (b.i.d.) followed by different increments of single-dose morphine upon development of antinociceptive tolerance, for 2-3 weeks: 2.5 (b.i.d.)→5 → 10→15 mg/kg/day, 5 (b.i.d.)→10 mg/kg/day, 5 (b.i.d.)→15 mg/kg/day, 10 (b.i.d.)→20 mg/kg/day. Antinociception was assessed daily pre-treatment and at several time-points over 2 h post-administration, using tail-flick and hot-plate assays. Tolerance was defined as significant antinociceptive desensitization and was presented as significant reduction of the maximum and total antinociceptive efficacy upon morphine administration. Rats commenced on 2.5 mg/kg/day (b.i.d.) morphine developed tolerance faster than those started on 5 or 10 mg/kg/day (b.i.d.). Comparatively, higher starting and maintenance doses of morphine produced prolonged antinociception and delayed tolerance. Whereas, lower starting and maintenance doses of morphine produced less total antinociception during the course of treatment and did not delay…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.04.034

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Innate circadian rhythms and timing factors can affect research outcomes such as behavioural, physiological, and immunological parameters.

    “Along with innate circadian rhythms, these can affect research outcomes such as behavioural, physiological, and immunological parameters [132,133].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paul, A. K., Gueven, N., & Dietis, N.
Affiliations
University of Tasmania (AU)
Corresponding author
Paul, Alok Kumar
Venue
Neuropharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
121
Pages
158-166
ISSN
0028-3908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2608557767
Cited by
21
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
morphine, antinociceptive tolerance, dosing regimen, starting dose, dosing frequency, opioid tolerance, antinociception, tail flick, hot plate, opioid analgesia
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Animals, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Administration Schedule, Drug Interactions, Drug Tolerance, Male, Morphine, Pain Measurement, Time Factors, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Pain Threshold, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review