Mechanistic evaluation of tapentadol in reducing the pain perception using in-vivo brain and spinal cord microdialysis in rats

The anaesthetist, opioid analgesic drugs, and serotonin toxicity: a mechanistic and clinical review

Most cases of serotonin toxicity are provoked by therapeutic doses of a combination of two or more serotonergic drugs, defined as drugs affecting the serotonin neurotransmitter system. Common serotonergic drugs include many antidepressants, antipsychotics, and opioid analgesics, particularly fentanyl, tramadol, meperidine (pethidine), and methadone, but rarely morphine and other related phenanthrenes. Symptoms of serotonin toxicity are attributable to an effect on monoaminergic transmission caused by an increased synaptic concentration of serotonin. The serotonin transporter (SERT) maintains low serotonin concentrations and is important for the reuptake of the neurotransmitter into the presynaptic nerve terminals. Some opioids inhibit the reuptake of serotonin by inhibiting SERT, thus increasing the plasma and synaptic cleft serotonin concentrations that activate the serotonin receptors. Opioids that are good inhibitors of SERT (tramadol, dextromethorphan, methadone, and meperidine) are most frequently associated with serotonin toxicity. Tramadol also has a direct serotonin-releasing action. Fentanyl produces an efflux of serotonin, and binds to 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)_1A and 5-HT_2A receptors, whilst methadone, meperidine, and more weakly tapentadol, bind to 5-HT_2A but not 5-HT_1A receptors. The perioperative period is a time where opioids and other serotonergic drugs are frequently administered in rapid succession, sometimes to patients with other serotonergic drugs in their system. This makes the perioperative period a relatively risky time for serotonin toxicity to occur. The intraoperative recognition of serotonin toxicity is challenging as it can mimic other serious syndromes, such as malignant hyperthermia, sepsis, thyroid storm, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Anaesthetists must maintain a heightened awareness of its possible occurrence and a readiness to engage in early treatment to avoid poor outcomes.

No effect of sex on ethanol intake and preference after dopamine transporter (DAT) knockdown in adult mice

RATIONALE

Dopamine levels are controlled in part by transport across the cell membrane by the dopamine transporter (DAT), and recent evidence showed that a polymorphism in the gene encoding DAT is associated with alcoholism. However, research in animal models using DAT knockout mice has yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

The present study was planned to evaluate the effects of DAT knockdown in the nucleus accumbens (Nacc) on voluntary ethanol consumption and preference in male and female C57BL/6J mice.

METHODS

For this purpose, animals were stereotaxically injected with DAT siRNA-expressing lentiviral vectors in the Nacc, and using a voluntary, continuous access two-bottle choice model of alcohol, we investigated the importance of accumbal DAT expression in voluntary alcohol intake and preference. We also investigated the effects of DAT knockdown on saccharin and quinine consumption and ethanol metabolism.

RESULTS

We show that females consumed more alcohol than males. Interestingly, DAT knockdown in the Nacc significantly decreased alcohol intake and preference in both groups, but no significant sex by group interaction was observed. Also, DAT knockdown did not alter total fluid consumption, saccharin or quinine consumption, or blood ethanol concentrations. Using Pearson correlation, results indicated a strong positive relationship between DAT mRNA expression and ethanol consumption and preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these data provide further evidence that DAT plays an important role in controlling ethanol intake and that accumbal DAT contributes in the modulation of the reinforcing effects of ethanol. Overall, the results suggest that DAT inhibitors may be valuable in the pharmacotherapy of alcoholism.

Does 'Strong Analgesic' Equal 'Strong Opioid'? Tapentadol and the Concept of 'µ-Load'

Introduction

The distinct properties of the centrally-acting analgesic tapentadol derive from the combined contributions of an opioid component and a nonopioid component. However, the opioid component’s relative contribution to analgesic and adverse effects has not previously been elucidated. Tapentadol’s analgesic effect derives from the combined contribution of an opioid mechanism and a nonopioid mechanism, the extent of which can vary for different pains. Likewise, the interaction can vary for various adverse effects. Hence, the contribution of each mechanism to adverse effects can be different from the contribution to analgesia. We here estimate the percent contribution of each component of the mechanism of action to analgesia and to adverse effects.

Areas Covered

Several approaches to in vitro and in vivo data to estimate the contribution of tapentadol’s opioid component to analgesia and to the two important opioid adverse effects, respiratory depression and constipation. The results are then compared with clinical data.

Expert Opinion

Traditional opioids, such as morphine, oxycodone, and others, produce their analgesic effects primarily through a single mechanism—the activation of µ-opioid receptors (MOR). Therefore, the contribution of the opioid component to adverse effects is 100%. In contrast, the newer strong analgesic tapentadol produces its analgesic effect via two separate and complementary analgesic mechanisms, only one of which is µ-opioid. We applied standard drug–receptor theory and novel techniques to in vitro and in vivo data to estimate by several different ways the μ-load of tapentadol (the % contribution of the opioid component to the adverse effect magnitude relative to a pure/classical µ-opioid at equianalgesia) in respiratory depression and constipation, and we compared the results to clinical evidence. The estimate is remarkably consistent over the various approaches and indicates that the μ-load of tapentadol is ≤ 40% (relative to pure MOR agonists, which have, by definition, a µ-load of 100%).

Funding

Grünenthal GmbH.

Role of the Prefrontal Cortex in Pain Processing

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is not only important in executive functions, but also pain processing. The latter is dependent on its connections to other areas of the cerebral neocortex, hippocampus, periaqueductal gray (PAG), thalamus, amygdala, and basal nuclei. Changes in neurotransmitters, gene expression, glial cells, and neuroinflammation occur in the PFC during acute and chronic pain, that result in alterations to its structure, activity, and connectivity. The medial PFC (mPFC) could serve dual, opposing roles in pain: (1) it mediates antinociceptive effects, due to its connections with other cortical areas, and as the main source of cortical afferents to the PAG for modulation of pain. This is a ‘loop’ where, on one side, a sensory stimulus is transformed into a perceptual signal through high brain processing activity, and perceptual activity is then utilized to control the flow of afferent sensory stimuli at their entrance (dorsal horn) to the CNS. (2) It could induce pain chronification via its corticostriatal projection, possibly depending on the level of dopamine receptor activation (or lack of) in the ventral tegmental area-nucleus accumbens reward pathway. The PFC is involved in biopsychosocial pain management. This includes repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, antidepressants, acupuncture, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, music, exercise, partner support, empathy, meditation, and prayer. Studies demonstrate the role of the PFC during placebo analgesia, and in establishing links between pain and depression, anxiety, and loss of cognition. In particular, losses in PFC grey matter are often reversible after successful treatment of chronic pain.

Nature's first "atypical opioids": Kratom and mitragynines

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Advances in pain research have led to an understanding that many pains are driven by more than one underlying (patho)physiologic cause (ie, they are "multimechanistic") and that better pain relief is obtained with fewer adverse effects when an analgesic is correspondingly multimechanistic. At least two of the more-modern analgesics combine opioid and non-opioid mechanisms, and have become known as "atypical opioids." Less well known is that just as Nature evolved opioids, it also evolved atypical opioids, presaging modern drug discovery efforts.

COMMENT

Traditional (typical) opioids are extracts or analogs of substances derived from the poppy plant. They produce their analgesic and adverse effects primarily through a single, opioid mechanism (albeit with individual differences). Two most recent analgesics were developed to have both an opioid mechanism and, a second, non-opioid mechanism of action (inhibition of monoamine neurotransmitter reuptake). Little known is that Nature had already evolved a plant source of compounds with the same properties.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

As debate about the use and abuse potential of kratom swirls, conflicting, often contradicting, opinions are expressed. A review of the basic pharmacology of kratom reveals the explanation for the bifurcation in viewpoints: kratom has both opioid and non-opioid properties. Fascinatingly, just as the poppy plant (Papaver) evolved the typical opioids, Mitragyna evolved the mitragynines-Nature's "atypical opioids."

Opioid-induced inhibition of the human 5-HT and noradrenaline transporters in vitro: link to clinical reports of serotonin syndrome

Background and Purpose

Opioids may inhibit the 5‐HT transporter (SERT) and the noradrenaline transporter (NET). NET inhibition may contribute to analgesia, and SERT inhibition or interactions with 5‐HT receptors may cause serotonergic toxicity. However, the effects of different opioids on the human SERT, NET and 5‐HT receptors have not been sufficiently studied.

Experimental Approach

We determined the potencies of different opioids to inhibit the SERT and NET in vitro using human transporter‐transfected HEK293 cells. We also tested binding affinities at 5‐HT_1A, 5‐HT_2A and 5‐HT_2C receptors. Additionally, we assessed clinical cases of the serotonin syndrome associated with each opioid reported by PubMed and a World Health Organization database.

Key Results

Dextromethorphan, l(R)‐methadone, racemic methadone, pethidine, tramadol and tapentadol inhibited the SERT at or close to observed drug plasma or estimated brain concentrations in patients. Tapentadol was the most potent NET inhibitor. Pethidine, tramadol, l(R)‐methadone, racemic methadone, dextromethorphan and O‐desmethyltramadol also inhibited the NET. 6‐Monoacetylmorphine, buprenorphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, heroin, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone and oxymorphone did not inhibit the SERT or NET. Fentanyl interacted with 5‐HT_1A receptors and methadone, pethidine and fentanyl with 5‐HT_2A receptors, in the low micromolar range. Opioids most frequently associated with the serotonin syndrome are tramadol, fentanyl, tapentadol, oxycodone, methadone and dextromethorphan.

Conclusions and Implications

Some synthetic opioids interact with the SERT and NET at potentially clinically relevant concentrations. SERT inhibition by tramadol, tapentadol, methadone, dextromethorphan and pethidine may contribute to the serotonin syndrome. Direct effects on 5‐HT_1A and/or 5‐HT_2A receptors could be involved with methadone and pethidine.