Treatments for chronic pain are inadequate, and new options are needed. Nonpharmaceutical approaches are especially attractive with many potential advantages including safety. Light therapy has been suggested to be beneficial in certain medical conditions such as depression, but this approach remains to be explored for modulation of pain. We investigated the effects of light-emitting diodes (LEDs), in the visible spectrum, on acute sensory thresholds in naive rats as well as in experimental neuropathic pain. Rats receiving green LED light (wavelength 525 nm, 8 h/d) showed significantly increased paw withdrawal latency to a noxious thermal stimulus; this antinociceptive effect persisted for 4 days after termination of last exposure without development of tolerance. No apparent side effects were noted and motor performance was not impaired. Despite LED exposure, opaque contact lenses prevented antinociception. Rats fitted with green contact lenses exposed to room light exhibited antinociception arguing for a role of the visual system. Antinociception was not due to stress/anxiety but likely due to increased enkephalins expression in the spinal cord. Naloxone reversed the antinociception, suggesting involvement of central opioid circuits. Rostral ventromedial medulla inactivation prevented expression of light-induced antinociception suggesting engagement of descending inhibition. Green LED exposure also reversed thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia in rats with spinal nerve ligation. Pharmacological and proteomic profiling of dorsal root ganglion neurons from green LED-exposed rats identified changes in calcium channel activity, including a decrease in the N-type (CaV2.2) channel, a primary analgesic target. Thus, green LED therapy may represent a novel, nonpharmacological approach for managing pain.

La disponibilité des médicaments analgésiques est limitée en médecine vétérinaire féline. Le but de cette étude était d'investiguer les propriétés anti-nociceptiques d'une nouvelle formule de buprénorphine (Simbadol, 1.8 mg ml-1) et tapentadol chez les chats. Six chats étaient inclus dans deux études différentes, les deux étant prospectives, randomisées, croisées, et aveuglées. Dans la première étude, Simbadol (1.8 mg mL-1) a été administré par voies sous-cutanée (SC;0.24 mg kg-1), intraveineuse (IV; 0.12 mg kg-1) et buccale (OTM; 0.12 mg kg-1) et les seuils thermiques ont été comparés avec ceux d'un groupe contrôle contenant de la saline (SAL; saline SC). Les concentrations plasmatiques de buprénorphine et norbuprénorphine ont été mesurées jusqu'à 72 heures suivant chaque traitement de buprénorphine. Un modèle pharmacocinétique-pharmacodynamique adapté à 2 substances et 3 voies d'administration a été utilisé. Dans la deuxième étude, les seuils thermiques ont été comparés entre les chats recevant de la buprénorphine (0.02 mg kg−1, IM), un placébo (50 mg de dextrose oral) et deux doses de tapentadol oralement (dose réduite: 25 mg; dose élevée: 50 mg) L'administration sous-cutanée de Simbadol a provoqué une anti-nociception thermique de longue durée (≥ 24 heures). Ces effets étaient prolongés comparativement aux traitements intraveineux (8 heures) et buccal (12 heures). Le modèle conjoint de pharmacocinétique/pharmacodynamique a démontré des concentrations plasmatiques prolongée pour la voie sous-cutanée. Les deux doses de tapentadol ont augmenté l'antinociception thermique chez les chats. La dose élevée de tapentadol a produit une durée d'antinociception similaire à celle de la buprénorphine (2 heures) et deux fois plus longue que la dose réduite. La palatabilité de la médication représente une limite significative de la voie d'administration. Simbadol et tapentadol produisent une antinociception thermique comparée à la saline. Des investigations cliniques supplémentaires seront nécessaires. / Analgesic drug availability is limited in feline practice. The aim of these studies was to investigate the antinociceptive properties of a novel formulation of buprenorphine (Simbadol, 1.8 mg ml-1) and tapentadol in cats. In two separate studies, six healthy cats (each) were included in a prospective, randomised, blinded, crossover study. In study I, Simbadol (1.8 mg mL-1) was administered by various routes: subcutaneous (SC; 0.24 mg kg-1), intravenous (IV; 0.12 mg kg-1) or buccal (OTM; 0.12 mg kg-1) route of administration and thermal thresholds (TT) were compared with a saline group (SAL; saline SC). Plasma buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine concentrations were measured up to 72 hours following each buprenorphine treatment. A bespoke pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model fitted data from two analytes/three routes of administration. In study II, thermal thresholds were compared among cats receiving buprenorphine (0.02 mg kg−1, IM), placebo (50 mg oral dextrose) and two doses of oral tapentadol (low-dose 25 mg; high-dose 50 mg). Subcutaneous administration of Simbadol provided long-lasting thermal antinociception (≥ 24 hours). These effects are prolonged compared with the IV (8 hours) and OTM (12 hours) treatments. Joint pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling demonstrated prolonged plasma concentrations for the SC route. Both doses of tapentadol increased thermal antinociception in cats. The high-dose of tapentadol produced similar duration of antinociception as intramuscular buprenorphine (2 hours) and twice as long as the low-dose. Palatability presented a significant limitation to the drug’s administration. Simbadol and tapentadol produced thermal antinociception when compared with saline. Additional investigation is necessary to determine if this translates to the clinical setting.