4.6 Review

Hot topics in opioid pharmacology: mixed and biased opioids

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 122, 期 6, 页码 E136-E145

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.006

关键词

analgesia; biased agonists; novel analgesics; opioid receptors; opioids

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
  2. British Heart Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analgesic design and evaluation have been driven by the desire to create high-affinity high-selectivity mu (mu)-opioid peptide (MOP) receptor agonists. Such ligands are the mainstay of current clinical practice, and include morphine and fentanyl. Advances in this sphere have come from designing pharmacokinetic advantage, as in rapid metabolism for remifentanil. These produce analgesia, but also the adverse-effect profile that currently defines this drug class: ventilatory depression, tolerance, and abuse liability. The MOP receptor is part of a family, and there are significant functional interactions between other members of the family (delta [delta]-opioid peptide [DOP], kappa [kappa]-opioid peptide [KOP], and nociceptin/orphanin FQ receptor [NOP]). Experimentally, MOP agonism and DOP antagonism produce anti-nociception (animals) with no tolerance, and low doses of MOP and NOP ligands synergise to antinociceptive advantage. In this latter context, the lack of effect of NOP agonists on ventilation is an additional advantage. Recent development has been to move towards low-selectivity multifunctional 'mixed ligands', such as cebranopadol, or ligand mixtures, such as Targinact (R). Moreover, the observation that beta-arrestin coupling underlies the side-effect profile for MOP ligands (from knockout animal studies) led to the discovery of biased (to G-protein and away from beta-arrestin intracellular signalling) MOP ligands, such as oliceridine. There is sufficient excitement in the opioid field to suggest that opioid analgesics without significant side-effects may be on the horizon, and the 'opioid Holy Grail' might be in reach.

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

4.6
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