4.7 Review

Nausea and the quest for the perfect anti-emetic

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 722, 期 -, 页码 108-121

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2013.09.072

关键词

Animal model; Anti-emetic; Prokinetic; Nausea; Vasopressin; Vomiting

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0900805] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The discovery of anti-emetic agents is reviewed to illustrate the large database (>129,000 papers in PubMed) available for potential data mining and to provide a background to the shift in interest to nausea from vomiting. Research on nausea extends to identification of biomarkers for diagnosis/clinical trials and to understanding why nausea is such a common dose-limiting toxicity of diverse therapeutic agents. The lessons learned for translation from animals to humans, from the discovery of the anti-vomiting effects of 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists, is discussed in terms of the similarities between the emetic pathways and their pharmacology, and also in terms of the limitations of rodent models of nausea (pica, conditioned taste aversion, conditioned gaping and disgust). The review focuses on the established view that anti-emetics are more efficacious against vomiting than nausea in particular we examine studies of 5-HT3, NK1 and D-2 receptor antagonists, gabapentin and various receptor agonists. The potential for targeting anti-nausea agents is then considered, by targeting mechanisms which correct delayed gastric emptying (prokinetics), the rise in plasma vasopressin (AVP) and/or act at central targets revealed by the growing knowledge of cortical regions activated/inhibited in subjects reporting nausea. Modulation of the projections from the brainstem to the cortical areas responsible for the genesis of the sensation of nausea provides the most likely approach to a target at which an anti nausea drug could be targeted with the expectation that it would affect nausea from multiple causes. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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