Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Anti-nociceptive effect of gabapentin in mouse models of acute and chronic pain

Rajalakshimi Vasudevan , Sadia Batool, Geetha Kandasamy, Saleh Farhan Saeed, Nouf Saleh, Maha Mohammed, Arwa Gursan Awad

College of Pharmacy, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;

For correspondence:-  Rajalakshimi Vasudevan   Email: aneesa@qau.edu.pk   Tel:+925190643223

Accepted: 18 June 2019        Published: 28 July 2019

Citation: Vasudevan R, Batool S, Kandasamy G, Saeed SF, Saleh N, Mohammed M, et al. Anti-nociceptive effect of gabapentin in mouse models of acute and chronic pain. Trop J Pharm Res 2019; 18(7):1475-1480 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v18i7.16

© 2019 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the anti-nociceptive effect of gabapentin in acute and chronic pain models.
Methods: Four mouse models of pain were used in this study. These comprised thermal tests (hot plate and tail immersion tests), and chemical tests (formalin and acetic acid-induced writhing tests). A total of seventy-two (72) albino mice weighing 25 - 40 g (mean weight = 32.5 ± 5.1 g) were used. In each test, the mice were randomly assigned to three sets of 6 mice each:  control group, celecoxib group and drug treatment group. Each test was performed at intervals of 30, 60 and 90 min.
Results: During the acute phase, there was no significant decrease in foot raising (FR) or licking and biting (L & B) episodes among the groups (p > 0.05). However, these episodes were significantly (p < 0.05) decreased in the second delayed phase, in the celecoxib and drug-treated groups, when compared with normal control group. Gabapentin significantly (p < 0.05) decreased pain response throughout the course of the thermal tests. The number of writhes within 30 min were significantly reduced in celecoxib and gabapentin-treated animals, compared with negative control group (p < 0.05). Gabapentin produced approximately 60 % protection of writhing, similar to that produced by celecoxib, the standard non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used (61 %).
Conclusion: The results demonstrate that the gabapentin is effective against chronic inflammatory pain in mice and therefore can be potentially developed as an effective anti-inflammatory agent for humans.

Keywords: Gabapentin, Celecoxib, Pain, Antinociceptive effect, Formalin test

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates