4.4 Article

Recurrent administration of the nitric oxide donor, isosorbide dinitrate, induces a persistent cephalic cutaneous hypersensitivity: A model for migraine progression

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 776-785

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102417714032

关键词

Headache; allodynia; trigeminal; triptans; CGRP antagonist; propranolol

资金

  1. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (Inserm)
  2. Universite Clermont Auvergne (France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background A subgroup of migraineurs experience an increase in attack frequency leading to chronic migraine. Methods We assessed in rats the roles of dose and repeat administration of systemic isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN), a nitric oxide donor, on the occurrence and development of cephalic/face and extracephalic/hindpaw mechanical allodynia as a surrogate of migraine pain, and the effect of acute systemic sumatriptan and olcegepant and chronic systemic propranolol on these behavioral changes. Results A single high (H-ISDN) but not low (L-ISDN) dose of ISDN induces a reversible cephalic and extracephalic mechanical allodynia. However, with repeat administration, L-ISDN produces reversible cephalic but never extracephalic allodynia, whereas H-ISDN induces cephalic and extracephalic allodynia that are both potentiated. H-ISDN-induced cephalic allodynia thus gains persistency. Sumatriptan and olcegepant block single H-ISDN-induced behavioral changes, but only olcegepant reduces these acute changes when potentiated by repeat administration. Neither sumatriptan nor olcegepant prevent chronic cephalic hypersensitivity. Conversely, propranolol blocks repeat H-ISDN-induced chronic, but not acute, behavioral changes. Conclusions Repeated ISDN administration appears to be a naturalistic rat model for migraine progression, suitable for screening acute and preventive migraine therapies. It suggests frequent and severe migraine attacks associated with allodynia may be a risk factor for disease progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据