4.7 Review

Potential mechanisms of prospective antimigraine drugs: A focus on vascular (side) effects

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 129, 期 3, 页码 332-351

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2010.12.001

关键词

Antimigraine drugs; Neuropeptides; 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists; CGRP receptor antagonists; Migraine; Vascular side-effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently available drugs for the acute treatment of migraine, i.e. ergot alkaloids and triptans, are cranial vasoconstrictors. Although cranial vasoconstriction is likely to mediate-at least a part of-their therapeutic effects, this property also causes vascular side-effects. Indeed, the ergot alkaloids and the triptans have been reported to induce myocardial ischemia and stroke, albeit in extremely rare cases, and are contraindicated in patients with known cardiovascular risk factors. In view of these limitations, novel antimigraine drugs devoid of vascular (side) effects are being explored. Currently, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, which do not have direct vasoconstrictor effects, are under clinical development. Other classes of drugs, such as 5-HT1F receptor agonists, glutamate receptor antagonists, nitric oxide synthase inhibitors, VPAC/PAC receptor antagonists and gap junction modulators, have also been proposed as potential targets for acute antimigraine drugs. Although these prospective drugs do not directly induce vasoconstriction, they may well induce indirect vascular effects by inhibiting or otherwise modulating the responses to endogenous vasoactive substances. These indirect vascular effects might contribute to the therapeutic efficacy of the previously mentioned compounds, but may alternatively also lead to vascular side-effects. As described in the current review, some of the prospective antimigraine drugs with a proposed non-vascular mechanism of action may still have direct or indirect vascular effects. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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