Different mechanisms were proposed for opioid-induced analgesia and antihyperalgesia, which might result in different pharmacodynamics. To address this issue, the time course of analgesic and antihyperalgesic effects of intravenous (i.v.) and sublingual (s.l.) buprenorphine was assessed in an experimental human pain model. Fifteen volunteers were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled cross-over study. The magnitude of pain and the area of secondary hyperalgesia following transcutaneous stimulation were repetitively assessed before and up to 150 min after administration of (1) 0.15 mg buprenorphine i.v. and placebo pill s.l., (2) 0.2 mg buprenorphine s.l. and saline 0.9% i.v. or (3) saline 0.9% i.v. and placebo pill s.l. as a control. The sessions were separated by 2 week wash-out periods. For both applications of buprenorphine the antihyperalgesic effects were more pronounced as compared to the analgesic effects (66+/-9 vs. 26+/-5% and 43+/-10 vs. 10+/-6%, for i.v. and s.l. application, respectively). This contrasts the pattern for the intravenous administration of pure mu-receptor agonists in the same model in which the antihyperalgesic effects are weaker. The apparent bioavailability of buprenorphine s.l. as compared to buprenorphine i.v. was 58% with a 15.8 min later onset of antinociceptive effects. The half-life of buprenorphine-induced analgesic and antihyperalgesic effects were 171 and 288 min, respectively. In contrast to pure mu-receptor agonists, buprenorphine exerts a lasting antihyperalgesic effect in our model. It will be of major clinical interest whether this difference will translate into improved treatment of pain states dominated by central sensitization.

Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to induce analgesia mainly via inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX). Although the inhibition of COX in the periphery is commonly accepted as the primary mechanism, experimental and clinical data suggest a potential role for spinal COX-inhibition to produce antinociception and reduce hypersensitivity. We used an experimental model of electrically evoked pain and hyperalgesia in human skin to determine the time course of central analgesic and antihyperalgesic effects of intravenous parecoxib and paracetamol (acetaminophen). Fourteen subjects were enrolled in this randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled cross-over study. In three sessions, separated by 2-week wash-out periods, the subjects received intravenous infusions of 40 mg parecoxib, 1000 mg paracetamol, or placebo. The magnitude of pain and areas of pinprick-hyperalgesia and touch evoked allodynia were repeatedly assessed before, and for 150 min after the infusion. While pain ratings were not affected, parecoxib as well as paracetamol significantly reduced the areas of secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and touch. In conclusion, our results provide clear experimental evidence for the existence of central antihyperalgesia induced by intravenous infusion of two COX inhibitors, parecoxib and paracetamol. Since the electrical current directly stimulated the axons, peripheral effects of the COX inhibitors on nociceptive nerve endings cannot account for the reduction of hyperalgesia. Thus, besides its well-known effects on inflamed peripheral tissues, inhibition of central COX provides an important mechanism of NSAID-mediated antihyperalgesia in humans.