This study examined the effect of environmental enrichment on sucrose seeking in rats made abstinent from sucrose for 1 month, as measured by response for a tone + light cue previously associated with 10% sucrose self-administration. Rats were either enriched throughout the study (experiment 1) or only after sucrose self-administration training (experiment 2). Enrichment consisted of either housing the rats in pairs or grouping four rats (ENR4) in a large environment, both with novel objects. Controls (CON) were singly housed without novel objects. In experiment 1, ENR4 rats responded less to the sucrose-paired cue versus CON rats, but this difference was not statistically significant. In contrast, the decrease in response of ENR4 rats versus CON rats in experiment 2 was dramatic and significant. These findings, along with findings from other laboratories, support a hypothesis that the enrichment may provide individuals with a greater ability to discriminate the availability of reward. This may impart a decreased vulnerability to relapse behavior. Therefore, these results are relevant to both eating disorder and drug addiction -disorders characterized by relapse.

Study Objective To determine whether aerosolized intranasal or buccal midazolam reduces the distress of pediatric laceration repair compared to oral midazolam. Methods Children 0.5–7 years old needing non-parenteral sedation for laceration repair were randomized to receive oral, aerosolized intranasal, or aerosolized buccal midazolam. Patient distress was rated by blinded review of videotapes using the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, sedation adequacy, sedation onset, satisfaction, and adverse events. Results For the 169 subjects (median age 3.1 years) evaluated for the primary outcome, we found significantly less distress in the buccal midazolam group compared to oral route (p=0.04; difference −2, 95% CI −4, 0), and a corresponding non-significant trend for the intranasal route (p=0.08; difference −1, 95% CI −3, 1). Secondary outcomes (177 subjects) favored the intranasal group, including a greater proportion with an optimal activity score (74%), a greater proportion of parents wanting this sedation in the future, and faster sedation onset. Intranasal was the route least tolerated at the time of administration. Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusions When comparing the administration of midazolam by 3 routes to facilitate pediatric laceration repair, we noted slightly less distress in the aerosolized buccal group. The intranasal route demonstrated a greater proportion with optimal activity scores, greater proportions of parents wanting similar sedation in the future and faster onset, but was also the most poorly tolerated at the time of administration. Aerosolized buccal or intranasal midazolam represent effective and useful alternatives to oral midazolam for sedation for laceration repair.

No abstract