The intrinsic antinociceptive effects of oxycodone appear to be kappa-opioid receptor mediated

Our previous studies in the Sprague-Dawley rat showed that the intrinsic antinociceptive effects of oxycodone are naloxone reversible in a manner analogous to morphine but that in contrast to morphine, oxycodone's antinociceptive effects have a rapid onset of maximum effect (approximate to 5-7 min compared to 30-45 min for morphine), comprise one antinociceptive phase (compared to two phases) and are of relatively short duration (approximate to 90 min compared to approximate to 180 min). In the present study, administration of a range of selective opioid receptor antagonists has shown that the intrinsic antinociceptive effects of oxycodone (171 nmol) are not attenuated by i.c.v. administration of (i) naloxonazine, a mu(1)-selective opioid receptor antagonist, or (ii) naltrindole, a delta-selective opioid receptor antagonist, in doses that completely attenuated the intrinsic antinociceptive effects of equipotent doses of the respective mu- and delta-opioid agonists, morphine and enkephalin-[D-Pen(2,5)] (DPDPE). Although beta-funaltrexamine (beta-FNA) attenuated the antinociceptive effects of oxycodone (171 nmol i.c.v.), it also attenuated the antinociceptive effects of morphine and bremazocine (kappa-opioid agonist) indicative of non-selective antagonism. Importantly, the antinociceptive effects of oxycodone (171 nmol i.c.v.) were markedly attenuated by the prior i.c.v. administration of the selective kappa-opioid receptor antagonist, norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI), in a dose (0.3 nmol) that did not attenuate the antinociceptive effects of an equipotent dose of i.c.v. morphine (78 nmol). Taken together, these data strongly suggest that the intrinsic antinociceptive effects of oxycodone are mediated by K-opioid receptors, in contrast to morphine which interacts primarily with mu-opioid receptors. (C) 1997 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Medical marijuana initiatives - Are they justified? How successful are they likely to be?

The principal constituent of cannabis, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is moderately effective in treating nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and acute and chronic pain. Oral THC (dronabinol) and the synthetic cannabinoid, nabilone, have been registered for medical use in the US and UK, but they have not been widely used because patients find it difficult to titrate doses of these drugs. Advocates for the medical use of cannabis argue that patients should be allowed to smoke cannabis to relieve these above-mentioned symptoms. Some US state governments have legislated to allow the medical prescription of cannabis, but the US federal government has tried to prevent patients from obtaining cannabis and threatened physicians who prescribe it with criminal prosecution or loss of their licence to practise. In the UK and Australia, committees of inquiry have recommended medical prescription (UK) and exemption from criminal prosecution (New South Wales, Australia), but governments have not accepted these recommendations. The Canadian government allows an exemption from criminal prosecution to patients with specified medical conditions. It has recently legislated to provide cannabis on medical prescription to registered patients, but this scheme so far has not been implemented. Some advocates argue that legalising cannabis is the only way to ensure that patients can use it for medical purposes. However, this would be contrary to international drug control treaties and is electorally unpopular. The best prospects for the medical use of cannabinoids lie in finding ways to deliver THC that do not involve smoking and in developing synthetic cannabinoids that produce therapeutic effects with a minimum of psychoactive effects. While awaiting these developments, patients with specified medical conditions could be given exemptions from criminal prosecution to grow cannabis for their own use, at their own risk.