Physiological effects of alfaxalone anesthesia on rhesus monkeys during intravenous glucose tolerance testing

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 26;19(7):e0308007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308007. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Laboratory animal research with nonhuman primates (NHPs) requires anesthesia for most procedures to ensure safety and consistency in sample collection. However, anesthesia drugs can have adverse effects on the physiological measures of interest. Alfaxalone, most notably used in dogs and cats, offers rapid onset, short duration of action, and has a high safety margin. Here, we compared our current anesthesia protocol using Telazol, to three different doses of alfaxalone during a one-hour intravenous glucose tolerance test, the standard evaluation of glucose metabolism in NHPs. Results indicate there are no differences in the rate of glucose metabolism, anesthesia depth measurements, or total duration of sedation, but induction, number of supplemental doses required, and recovery time to eating were affected by the different doses of alfaxalone. Cardiovascular measures showed variability between the four protocols in respiratory rate and systolic blood pressure rates only. These results indicate that alfaxalone can produce a reliable state of anesthesia, similar to our current protocol, and confers minimal cardiovascular or metabolic disturbance, as well as enhanced recovery characteristics. As such, alfaxalone is a promising anesthetic for use in laboratory animals and further investigation is warranted.

MeSH terms

  • Anesthesia
  • Anesthetics* / pharmacology
  • Animals
  • Blood Glucose / drug effects
  • Blood Pressure / drug effects
  • Female
  • Glucose Tolerance Test* / methods
  • Heart Rate / drug effects
  • Macaca mulatta*
  • Male
  • Pregnanediones* / administration & dosage
  • Pregnanediones* / pharmacology

Substances

  • alphaxalone
  • Pregnanediones
  • Anesthetics
  • Blood Glucose

Grants and funding

This research was financially supported entirely by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging, NIH. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. KLV and JAM are employees of the NIH. This project was fully funded by the NIA, though the authors received no specific funding for this work.