DOCSLIB.ORG

A1-Blocker Therapy in the Nineties: Focus on the Disease

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A1-Blocker Therapy in the Nineties: Focus on the Disease Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (1999) 2 Suppl 4, S9±S15 ß 1999 Stockton Press All rights reserved 1365±7852/99 $15.00 http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/pcan a1-Blocker therapy in the nineties: focus on the disease KHoÈfner1* 1Department of Urology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia has evolved rapidly over the last decade, with the introduction in the early 1990s of new agents such as a1-blockers and 5a-reductase inhibitors. The major advantage of a1-blockers over 5a- reductase inhibitors is their rapid onset of action. Maximum ¯ow rate is improved after ®rst administration and optimal symptom relief is usually reached within 2 ± 3 months. In addition, a1-blockers are effective regardless of prostate size and they provide a similar degree of symptom relief in patients with or without bladder outlet obstruction. The main adverse events with the a1- blockers relate to their effects on the cardiovascular system (postural hypoten- sion) and central penetration (asthenia, somnolence). Newer uroselective a1- blockers, such as alfuzosin and tamsulosin, have a better safety pro®le and, as such, do not require initial dose titration. Alfuzosin has also been shown in a six- month study to signi®cantly reduce both residual urine and the incidence of acute urinary retention (AUR) compared with placebo. In addition, alfuzosin is effective in improving the success rate of a trial without catheter in patients with AUR. Keywords: benign prostatic hyperplasia; prostate; a1-blockers; 5a-reductase inhibitors; acute urinary retention; LUTS Management of BPH adrenoceptors. Medical management of BPH suddenly exploded at the beginning of the 1990s with the introduc- Therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has tion of selective a1-blockers and 5a-reductase inhibitors. evolved considerably over the past century. Performance In terms of treatment goals for BPH, the two main of open prostatectomy, routine until 20 ± 25 years ago, has objectives are to reduce symptoms and relieve obstruc- been gradually replaced by transurethral resection of the tion. Obstruction and symptoms are not correlated, how- prostate (TURP), which is now the preferred surgical ever, and patients may present with signi®cant symptoms procedure worldwide. At the start of the 1990s, new but no obstruction. Consequently, it is important to therapies which were less interventional than TURP distinguish between different patient types in order that were introduced, such as thermotherapy, laser therapy the most appropriate treatment be given. and therapies involving radiofrequencies, e.g. transure- thral needle ablation. To date, most of these techniques are still regarded as investigational and additional ran- TURP domized studies focusing on costs and durability of symptomatic improvement are needed. Dramatic reduction in the use of TURP for the treatment The development of medical therapy for BPH has been of BPH worldwide have been reported, with perhaps the a long process, beginning with phytotherapy in Egyptian greatest decline in number of procedures being noted in times. In the mid-1970s, the better understanding of the the US (Figure 1).1 TURP constituted 94% of all BPH pathophysiology of BPH led to the ®rst use of phen- surgery in 1995 in the US, but has declined to 52% over oxybenzamine, an irreversible antagonist of both a1/a2 the past decade.2 Only in the UK, where the number of procedures has been consistently low, has the incidence not declined appreciatively. TURP is often referred to as the gold standard treatment for BPH, but in actual fact it *Correspondence: Professor Dr Klaus HoÈfner, Department of Urology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 is not the ®rst treatment choice for the majority of Hannover, Germany. patients. Recent experience in clinical practice has E-mail: [email protected] shown that many patients prefer less aggressive interven- a1-Blocker therapy KHoÈfner S10 Figure 1 Worldwide trends in transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia.1 tions than TURP, even if their symptoms are relatively a1-blockers and 5a-reductase inhibitors have very dif- severe.3 Surgery for BPH remains mandatory, however, ferent modes of action. The former targets the dynamic for a number of conditions, including: refractory urinary component of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), by retention (after at least one attempt to remove the cathe- decreasing the sympathetically controlled tone of pro- ter), recurrent urinary tract infection due to benign pro- static, urethral and bladder neck smooth muscle, whilst static obstruction (BPO), recurrent gross haematuria due the latter targets the static component, i.e. prostate gland to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE), bladder stones, size. The choice between these two treatment options large bladder diverticula, and renal failure due to BPO.4 implies a critical analysis of various parameters, such as In terms of improvement in symptoms, ¯ow rate and the rapidity of action, the magnitude of the symptom obstruction, TURP is the standard against which other relief, the safety pro®le and also the long-term outcome therapies should be compared. However, it is associated (Table 1). with a low, but signi®cant morbidity, even when per- formed by experienced urologists. In particular, sexual function appears to be a major area of concern, with Rapid onset of action retrograde ejaculation occurring in nearly 75% of patients and about 15% of potent men becoming impotent.5 While the 5a-reductase inhibitor ®nasteride may take three to six months to be effective, there is no doubt that the principal advantage of a1-blockers is their rapid onset of action. Hence, alfuzosin has been shown to increase maximum ¯ow rate (Qmax) by about 30% from Medical therapy Concurrently with the decline of surgery, the total market Table 1 Main characteristics of a1-blockers and 5a-reductase inhib- for medical therapies for BPH has considerably increased itors over the past nine years worldwide, mainly due to the a1-blockers 5a-reductase inhibitors emergence of two classes of medications, a1-blockers and 5a-reductase inhibitors. These agents have unambigu- Target Dynamic component Static component ously demonstrated their ef®cacy and good safety pro®le Prostate size All Enlarged in well-designed, placebo-controlled studies. Surprisingly, Onset of action Immediate Delayed Ef®cacy LUTS: 30 ± 50% Slightly lower than despite the lack of long-term data con®rming their ef®- improvement a1-blockers, up to one year cacy, sales of phytotherapeutic agents (expressed in mil- Qmax: 30% decrease lions of treatment days) have remained stable for a Effect on PSA None Decrease by 50% number of years and are just starting to decline (Figure Side effects Postural symptoms Sexual disorders 2). While the market for 5a-reductase inhibitors has been Effect on AUR Yes Yes stable since 1995, that of a -blockers is expanding rapidly 1 LUTS lower urinary tract symptoms; Qmax maximum ¯ow rate; worldwide. PSA prostate-speci®c antigen; AUR acute urinary retention. a1-Blocker therapy KHoÈfner S11 Figure 2 Worldwide trends in medical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. From IMS Health Retail Data. the ®rst administration,6 which represents the bene®t improvement in LUTS and quality of life in those patients 14 expected from an a1-blocker in the medium and long with and without BOO. term. Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) improve- ment is also rapid and reaches its maximum within two to three months of treatment.7±10 Overall, the magnitude of 11 symptom relief is very similar with different a1-blockers. a1-Blocker plus ®nasteride combination studies Effect on obstruction In the early 1990s, there was much debate on the potential therapeutic bene®ts of combining two medical therapies Limited studies are available examining the effect of with very different modes of action, i.e. an a1-blocker and a1-blockers on BOO. Two placebo-controlled studies ®nasteride. Both drugs are capable of improving LUTS have been conducted examining the effect of a1-blockers and Qmax and their effect may, in theory, be synergistic. on detrusor pressure at Qmax, the single measurement The value of the combination has now been tested up to most closely associated with the presence and degree of one year in three major studies involving terazosin/ BOO. A study by Martorana et al 12 showed that after four ®nasteride,9 alfuzosin/®nasteride16 and doxazosin/®nas- weeks of treatment with alfuzosin (7.5 mg/day), detrusor teride.17 However, none of these studies demonstrated pressure at Qmax decreased from 78 cmH2O to 54 cmH2O any added bene®t of combining the two types of drug. ( 30%). This difference was signi®cant (P < 0.01) com- In the ®rst combination study, the Veterans' Affairs pared with placebo, where detrusor pressure fell from (VA) Study, the safety and ef®cacy of terazosin (10 mg/ 82 cmH2O to 77 cmH2O( 6.1%). Administration of alfu- day), ®nasteride (5 mg/day), the combination of the two zosin for an additional eight weeks on an open basis was and placebo were compared in 1229 men with BPH over a associated with a further decrease in detrusor pressure at one-year period.9 The mean changes in I-PSS at one year Qmax (from 46 cmH2O to 31 cmH2O; P < 0.05). Similar were of the same order of magnitude with terazosin results have been observed with tamsulosin, 0.4 mg/ ( 6.1) and the combination ( 6.2), both being signi®- day, where a reduction in detrusor pressure from cantly higher than ®nasteride ( 3.2) and placebo ( 2.6). 13 93.6 cmH2O to 67 cmH2O(28%) was recorded. Similarly, mean increases in Qmax at one year were Again, the difference was signi®cant compared with the signi®cantly higher with terazosin ( 2.7 mL/s) and the placebo response of 88.4 cmH2O to 83.5 cmH2O( 6%).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Principle of Pharmacodynamics
    Principle of pharmacodynamics Dr. M. Emamghoreishi Full Professor Department of Pharmacology Medical School Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Email:[email protected] Reference: Basic & Clinical Pharmacology: Bertrum G. Katzung and Anthony J. Treveror, 13th edition, 2015, chapter 20, p. 336-351 Learning Objectives: At the end of sessions, students should be able to: 1. Define pharmacology and explain its importance for a clinician. 2. Define ―drug receptor‖. 3. Explain the nature of drug receptors. 4. Describe other sites of drug actions. 5. Explain the drug-receptor interaction. 6. Define the terms ―affinity‖, ―intrinsic activity‖ and ―Kd‖. 7. Explain the terms ―agonist‖ and ―antagonist‖ and their different types. 8. Explain chemical and physiological antagonists. 9. Explain the differences in drug responsiveness. 10. Explain tolerance, tachyphylaxis, and overshoot. 11. Define different dose-response curves. 12. Explain the information that can be obtained from a graded dose-response curve. 13. Describe the potency and efficacy of drugs. 14. Explain shift of dose-response curves in the presence of competitive and irreversible antagonists and its importance in clinical application of antagonists. 15. Explain the information that can be obtained from a quantal dose-response curve. 16. Define the terms ED50, TD50, LD50, therapeutic index and certain safety factor. What is Pharmacology?It is defined as the study of drugs (substances used to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease). Pharmacology is the science that deals with the interactions betweena drug and the bodyor living systems. The interactions between a drug and the body are conveniently divided into two classes. The actions of the drug on the body are termed pharmacodynamicprocesses.These properties determine the group in which the drug is classified, and they play the major role in deciding whether that group is appropriate therapy for a particular symptom or disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Opioid Receptorsreceptors
    OPIOIDOPIOID RECEPTORSRECEPTORS defined or “classical” types of opioid receptor µ,dk and . Alistair Corbett, Sandy McKnight and Graeme Genes encoding for these receptors have been cloned.5, Henderson 6,7,8 More recently, cDNA encoding an “orphan” receptor Dr Alistair Corbett is Lecturer in the School of was identified which has a high degree of homology to Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Glasgow the “classical” opioid receptors; on structural grounds Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, this receptor is an opioid receptor and has been named Glasgow G4 0BA, UK. ORL (opioid receptor-like).9 As would be predicted from 1 Dr Sandy McKnight is Associate Director, Parke- their known abilities to couple through pertussis toxin- Davis Neuroscience Research Centre, sensitive G-proteins, all of the cloned opioid receptors Cambridge University Forvie Site, Robinson possess the same general structure of an extracellular Way, Cambridge CB2 2QB, UK. N-terminal region, seven transmembrane domains and Professor Graeme Henderson is Professor of intracellular C-terminal tail structure. There is Pharmacology and Head of Department, pharmacological evidence for subtypes of each Department of Pharmacology, School of Medical receptor and other types of novel, less well- Sciences, University of Bristol, University Walk, characterised opioid receptors,eliz , , , , have also been Bristol BS8 1TD, UK. postulated. Thes -receptor, however, is no longer regarded as an opioid receptor. Introduction Receptor Subtypes Preparations of the opium poppy papaver somniferum m-Receptor subtypes have been used for many hundreds of years to relieve The MOR-1 gene, encoding for one form of them - pain. In 1803, Sertürner isolated a crystalline sample of receptor, shows approximately 50-70% homology to the main constituent alkaloid, morphine, which was later shown to be almost entirely responsible for the the genes encoding for thedk -(DOR-1), -(KOR-1) and orphan (ORL ) receptors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Serotonergic and Adrenergic Receptors for the Induction and Expression of One-Trial Cocaine-Induced Behavioral Sensitization" (2016)
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 12-2016 THE IMPORTANCE OF SEROTONERGIC AND ADRENERGIC RECEPTORS FOR THE INDUCTION AND EXPRESSION OF ONE- TRIAL COCAINE-INDUCED BEHAVIORAL SENSITIZATION Krista N. Rudberg California State University - San Bernardino Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Biological Psychology Commons, and the Pharmacology Commons Recommended Citation Rudberg, Krista N., "THE IMPORTANCE OF SEROTONERGIC AND ADRENERGIC RECEPTORS FOR THE INDUCTION AND EXPRESSION OF ONE-TRIAL COCAINE-INDUCED BEHAVIORAL SENSITIZATION" (2016). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 420. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/420 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IMPORTANCE OF SEROTONERGIC AND ADRENERGIC RECEPTORS FOR THE INDUCTION AND EXPRESSION OF ONE-TRIAL COCAINE- INDUCED BEHAVIORAL SENSITIZATION A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in General/Experimental Psychology by Krista Nicole Rudberg December 2016 THE IMPORTANCE OF SEROTONERGIC AND ADRENERGIC RECEPTORS FOR THE INDUCTION AND EXPRESSION OF ONE-TRIAL COCAINE- INDUCED BEHAVIORAL SENSITIZATION A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by Krista Nicole Rudberg December 2016 Approved by: Sanders McDougall, Committee Chair, Psychology Cynthia Crawford, Committee Member Matthew Riggs, Committee Member © 2016 Krista Nicole Rudberg ABSTRACT Addiction is a complex process in which behavioral sensitization may be an important component.
    [Show full text]
  • Anew Drug Design Strategy in the Liht of Molecular Hybridization Concept
    www.ijcrt.org © 2020 IJCRT | Volume 8, Issue 12 December 2020 | ISSN: 2320-2882 “Drug Design strategy and chemical process maximization in the light of Molecular Hybridization Concept.” Subhasis Basu, Ph D Registration No: VB 1198 of 2018-2019. Department Of Chemistry, Visva-Bharati University A Draft Thesis is submitted for the partial fulfilment of PhD in Chemistry Thesis/Degree proceeding. DECLARATION I Certify that a. The Work contained in this thesis is original and has been done by me under the guidance of my supervisor. b. The work has not been submitted to any other Institute for any degree or diploma. c. I have followed the guidelines provided by the Institute in preparing the thesis. d. I have conformed to the norms and guidelines given in the Ethical Code of Conduct of the Institute. e. Whenever I have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, figures and text) from other sources, I have given due credit to them by citing them in the text of the thesis and giving their details in the references. Further, I have taken permission from the copyright owners of the sources, whenever necessary. IJCRT2012039 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org 284 www.ijcrt.org © 2020 IJCRT | Volume 8, Issue 12 December 2020 | ISSN: 2320-2882 f. Whenever I have quoted written materials from other sources I have put them under quotation marks and given due credit to the sources by citing them and giving required details in the references. (Subhasis Basu) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This preface is to extend an appreciation to all those individuals who with their generous co- operation guided us in every aspect to make this design and drawing successful.
    [Show full text]
  • International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification
    0031-6997/03/5504-597–606$7.00 PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS Vol. 55, No. 4 Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 30404/1114803 Pharmacol Rev 55:597–606, 2003 Printed in U.S.A International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on Terms and Symbols in Quantitative Pharmacology RICHARD R. NEUBIG, MICHAEL SPEDDING, TERRY KENAKIN, AND ARTHUR CHRISTOPOULOS Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (R.R.N.); Institute de Recherches Internationales Servier, Neuilly sur Seine, France (M.S.); Systems Research, GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (T.K.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia (A.C.) Abstract ............................................................................... 597 I. Introduction............................................................................ 597 II. Working definition of a receptor .......................................................... 598 III. Use of drugs in definition of receptors or of signaling pathways ............................. 598 A. The expression of amount of drug: concentration and dose ............................... 598 1. Concentration..................................................................... 598 2. Dose. ............................................................................ 598 B. General terms used to describe drug action ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on Terms and Symbols in Quantitative Pharmacology
    0031-6997/03/5504-597–606$7.00 PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS Vol. 55, No. 4 Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 30404/1114803 Pharmacol Rev 55:597–606, 2003 Printed in U.S.A International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on Terms and Symbols in Quantitative Pharmacology RICHARD R. NEUBIG, MICHAEL SPEDDING, TERRY KENAKIN, AND ARTHUR CHRISTOPOULOS Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (R.R.N.); Institute de Recherches Internationales Servier, Neuilly sur Seine, France (M.S.); Systems Research, GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (T.K.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia (A.C.) Abstract ............................................................................... 597 I. Introduction............................................................................ 597 II. Working definition of a receptor .......................................................... 598 III. Use of drugs in definition of receptors or of signaling pathways ............................. 598 A. The expression of amount of drug: concentration and dose ............................... 598 Downloaded from 1. Concentration..................................................................... 598 2. Dose. ............................................................................ 598 B. General terms used to describe drug action ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Exploration of the Structure–Activity Space of Cloned A-Like Octopamine Receptors from a Marine and a Terrestrial Arthropod S
    Supplemental material to this article can be found at: http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/suppl/2017/06/29/mol.117.108456.DC1 1521-0111/92/3/297–309$25.00 https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.117.108456 MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY Mol Pharmacol 92:297–309, September 2017 Copyright ª 2017 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Comparative Exploration of the Structure–Activity Space of Cloned a-Like Octopamine Receptors from a Marine and a Terrestrial Arthropod s Dhwanil A. Dalwadi and John A. Schetz Department of Pharmacology and Neuroscience (D.A.D., J.A.S.), Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Institute for Healthy Aging, Center for Neuroscience Discovery, and Department of Medical Education (J.A.S.), Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas Received January 23, 2017; accepted June 26, 2017 Downloaded from ABSTRACT The a-like octopamine receptors (OctR) are believed to be the different mechanisms of action. For instance, significant differ- evolutionary precursor to the vertebrate a2-adrenergic receptors ences in the efficacy for some agonists were observed, includ- (a2-ARs) based upon sequence similarity and the ability to ing that vertebrate biogenic amines structurally related to interact with norepinephrine and a number of compounds that octopamine acted as superagonists at the DmOctR but partial molpharm.aspetjournals.org bind with high affinity to a2-ARs. Barnacles and fruit flies are agonists at the BiOctR, and the two species diverged in their 3 two prominent model marine and terrestrial representatives of sensitivities to the a2-AR antagonist [ H]rauwolscine.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Medicinal Chemistry 3 5
    Progress in MedUicinal Chemistry 35 This Page intentionally left blank Progress in Medicinal Chemistry 3 5 Editors: G.P. ELLIS,D.SC., PH.D., F.R.S.C. Department of Chemistry University of Wales P.0. Box 912, Card18 CFI 3 TB United Kitigdom D.K. LUSCOMBE, B.PHARM., PH.D., F.I.BIOL., F.R.PHARM.S Welsh School of Pharmacy University of Wales P.0. Box 13, Cardig CFI 3XF United Kingdom and A.W. OXFORD, M.A., D.PHIL. Consultant in Medicinal Cheniistry P. 0. Box 151 Royston SG8 5 YQ United Kingdom 1998 ELSEVIER AMSTERDAM LAUSANNE- NEW YORK *OXFORD*SHANNON*SINCAPORE -TOKYO Elsevier Science BV P.O. Box 21 1 1000 AE Amsterdam The Netherlands Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: Please refer to card number 62-2712 for this series. ISBN 0-444-82909-1 ISBN Series 0-7204-7400-0 0 1998 Elsevier Science BV. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Publisher, Elsevier Science B.V., Copyright and Permissions Department, P.O. Box 521, 1000 AM Amsterdam, The Netherlands. No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the Publisher recommends that independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made.
    [Show full text]
  • International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on Terms and Symbols in Quantitative Pharmacology
    0031-6997/03/5504-597–606$7.00 PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS Vol. 55, No. 4 Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 30404/1114803 Pharmacol Rev 55:597–606, 2003 Printed in U.S.A International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on Terms and Symbols in Quantitative Pharmacology RICHARD R. NEUBIG, MICHAEL SPEDDING, TERRY KENAKIN, AND ARTHUR CHRISTOPOULOS Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (R.R.N.); Institute de Recherches Internationales Servier, Neuilly sur Seine, France (M.S.); Systems Research, GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (T.K.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia (A.C.) Abstract ............................................................................... 597 I. Introduction............................................................................ 597 II. Working definition of a receptor .......................................................... 598 III. Use of drugs in definition of receptors or of signaling pathways ............................. 598 A. The expression of amount of drug: concentration and dose ............................... 598 Downloaded from 1. Concentration..................................................................... 598 2. Dose. ............................................................................ 598 B. General terms used to describe drug action ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drug-Gut Microbiota Interactions: Implications for Neuropharmacology Author(S) Walsh, Jacinta; Griffin, Brendan T.; Clarke, Gerard; Hyland, Niall P
    UCC Library and UCC researchers have made this item openly available. Please let us know how this has helped you. Thanks! Title Drug-gut microbiota interactions: implications for neuropharmacology Author(s) Walsh, Jacinta; Griffin, Brendan T.; Clarke, Gerard; Hyland, Niall P. Publication date 2018-05-21 Original citation Walsh, J., Griffin, B. T., Clarke, G. and Hyland, N. P. (2018) 'Drug-gut microbiota interactions: implications for neuropharmacology', British Journal of Pharmacology. doi:10.1111/bph.14366 Type of publication Article (peer-reviewed) Link to publisher's http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.14366 version Access to the full text of the published version may require a subscription. Rights © 2018, British Pharmacological Society. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Walsh, J., Griffin, B. T., Clarke, G. and Hyland, N. P. (2018) 'Drug-gut microbiota interactions: implications for neuropharmacology', British Journal of Pharmacology. doi:10.1111/bph.14366, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14366. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Embargo information Access to this article is restricted until 12 months after publication by request of the publisher. Embargo lift date 2019-05-21 Item downloaded http://hdl.handle.net/10468/6243 from Downloaded on 2021-10-02T02:32:36Z Drug-Gut Microbiota Interactions: Implications for Neuropharmacology Walsh, Jacinta 1,4, Griffin, Brendan T. 2,4, Clarke, Gerard 3,4*, Hyland, Niall P. 1,4 1 Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University College Cork, 2 School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, 3 Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioural Science, University College Cork, 4 APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork.
    [Show full text]
  • 5-HT2A Receptors in the Central Nervous System the Receptors
    The Receptors Bruno P. Guiard Giuseppe Di Giovanni Editors 5-HT2A Receptors in the Central Nervous System The Receptors Volume 32 Series Editor Giuseppe Di Giovanni Department of Physiology & Biochemistry Faculty of Medicine and Surgery University of Malta Msida, Malta The Receptors book Series, founded in the 1980’s, is a broad-based and well- respected series on all aspects of receptor neurophysiology. The series presents published volumes that comprehensively review neural receptors for a specific hormone or neurotransmitter by invited leading specialists. Particular attention is paid to in-depth studies of receptors’ role in health and neuropathological processes. Recent volumes in the series cover chemical, physical, modeling, biological, pharmacological, anatomical aspects and drug discovery regarding different receptors. All books in this series have, with a rigorous editing, a strong reference value and provide essential up-to-date resources for neuroscience researchers, lecturers, students and pharmaceutical research. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7668 Bruno P. Guiard • Giuseppe Di Giovanni Editors 5-HT2A Receptors in the Central Nervous System Editors Bruno P. Guiard Giuseppe Di Giovanni Faculté de Pharmacie Department of Physiology Université Paris Sud and Biochemistry Université Paris-Saclay University of Malta Chatenay-Malabry, France Msida MSD, Malta Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale (CRCA) Centre de Biologie Intégrative (CBI) Université de Toulouse; CNRS, UPS Toulouse, France The Receptors ISBN 978-3-319-70472-2 ISBN 978-3-319-70474-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70474-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017964095 © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • China White Fentanyl Heroin Morphine
    Pharmacology and Therapeutics Pharmacodynamics Small Group IV August 12, 2016, 1-3:00 PM FACILITATORS GUIDE QUESTION 1 (Principle: The Graded Dose-Response Curve) Pittsburgh, PA; November 1988: A 34-year old man is brought to the emergency room in a disheveled and unresponsive state. His vital signs reveal a heart rate of 26 bpm and he is apneic. He has no palpable blood pressure, but has a palpable slow pulse in his femoral artery. Fresh needle track marks, consistent with recent injections, are present in his left antecubital fossa (elbow pit). He is suspected to be a victim of the epidemic of superpotent heroin, “China White”, which swept the Pittsburg area in the late 1980’s. Heroin overdose is typically treated by I.V. administration of naloxone (a drug that binds to the same site on the mu-opioid receptors as heroin, but without the narcotic effects of heroin). Despite oral intubation, mechanical ventilation, advanced cardiac life support measures, and large intravenous doses of naloxone, the patient died. Part 1 (Teaching Point: Graded Dose Response Curves for Various Opiate Receptor Agonists) China white is the street name for 3-methyl-fentanyl, a short-acting synthetic opioid agonist estimated to have 10,000 times the potency of heroin at mu-opioid receptors. Pharmaceutical fentanyl has a potency of 100 times that of heroin, while the commonly used opioid analgesic morphine is approximately 5 times less potent than heroin. All four drugs are equally efficacious with respect to the effects produced by their activation of m opioid receptors. If the potency of heroin at mu-opioid receptors is 10 mg/kg, using the axes below, draw semi-logarithmic dose- response curves to show the expected relative relationships between heroin, fentanyl, morphine and China White (3-methyl fentanyl), indicate their respective ED50’s and show in the figure how these are values are determined.
    [Show full text]