Gerd Mikus

The polymorphic cytochrome P450 CYP2D6 catalyses the biotransformation of at least 40 drugs. The CYP2D6 genetic polymorphism is responsible for pronounced interindividual differences in plasma concentrations and, hence, in drug action and side-effects after administration of the same dose. Provided there is a close relationship between CYP2D6 genotypes and catalytic function, genotyping could be used in the clinical setting for individualization of drug dose. In the present study, we evaluated the relationship between the in-vivo enzyme activity and 35 different genotypes in order to determine whether genotyping can be used to predict a person's metabolic capacity for CYP2D6-catalysed drug oxidation using sparteine as a probe drug. One hundred and ninety-five Caucasian individuals were genotyped for seven nonfunctional (CYP2D6 x 3, x 4, x 5, x 6, x 7, x 8, x 16) and eight functional alleles (CYP2D6 x 1, x 2, x 2 x 2, x 2B, x 2B x 2, x 9, x 10, x 17). The metabolic ratio distribution for sparteine showed trimodality, with 15 poor metabolizers, 21 intermediate metabolizers, and 1.59 extensive and ultrarapid metabolizers. All poor metabolizers were unambiguously identified as carriers of two nonfunctional alleles. In contrast, the most frequent functional genotypes extensively overlapped and, with few exceptions, genotype was not a useful predictor of function. Gene dose effects among homozygotes and heterozygotes of the major functional alleles were not significant and could not explain the wide variations. Only a minor fraction of phenotypical ultrarapid metabolizers, arbitrarily defined as individuals with a metabolic ratio < 0.2, could be identified as carriers of three functional gene copies, including duplicated CYP2D6 x 2 x 2 alleles. Similarly, only a minor fraction of the intermediate metabolizers had predictive genotypes involving alleles coding for enzyme with impaired function. Thus, genotyping correctly identifies poor metabolizers, but quantitative prediction of drug metabolism capacity among extensive metabolizers is not possible.

The analgesic effect and adverse events of the weak opioid codeine is assumed to be mediated by its metabolite morphine. The cytochrome P-450 enzyme CYP2D6 catalysing the formation of morphine exhibits a genetic polymorphism. Two distinct phenotypes, the extensive (EMs) and poor metabolisers (PMs), are present in the population. The prevalence of PMs in the Caucasian population is 7% to 10%. Since PMs do not express functional CYP2D6, they have a severely impaired capacity to metabolise drugs which are substrates of this enzyme. Provided the analgesic effect and the adverse events of codeine are mediated by its metabolite morphine, large phenotype-related differences are to be expected and PMs, as they form only trace amounts of morphine, can serve as a model to test the hypothesis whether the analgesia and adverse events of codeine are mediated by the parent drug or its metabolite morphine. Therefore we have studied in a randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial the analgesic effect of 170 mg codeine (p.o.) compared to 20 mg morphine (p.o.) and placebo in 9 EMs and 9 PMs using the cold pressor test. The duration and intensity of the side effects were assessed using visual analogue scales (VAS). Codeine and morphine concentrations were measured in serum and urine. Compared to placebo, 20 mg morphine caused a significant increase in pain tolerance in both phenotypes, EMs and PMs (16.2+/-27.4 vs. -0.66+/-27.4 s x h, n=18). However, following administration of codeine, analgesia was only observed in EMs but not in PMs (EMs: 54.9+/-42.2 vs. 1.7+/-4.2 s x h, P < 0.01; PMs: 9.6+/-10.9 vs. 3.3+/-23.7 s x h, not significant). Adverse events were significantly more pronounced after morphine and codeine compared to placebo in both EMs and PMs. In contrast to the phenotype-related differences in the analgesic effect of codeine, however, no difference in adverse events between the phenotypes could be observed. In the pharmacokinetic studies, significant differences between the two phenotypes in the formation of morphine after codeine administration could be observed. Whereas morphine plasma concentrations were similar in PMs (Cmax: 44+/-13 nmol/l: AUC: 199+/-45 nmol x h/l) and EMs (Cmax: 48+/-17 nmol/l); AUC: 210+/-65 nmol x h/l) after morphine administration, following 170 mg codeine, morphine plasma concentrations comparable to those after morphine application were only observed in EMs (Cmax: 38+/-16 nmol/l; AUC: 173+/-90 nmol x h/l). In PMs only traces of morphine could be detected in plasma (Cmax: 2+/-1 nmol/l; AUC: 10+/-7 nmol x h/l). The percentage of the codeine dose converted to morphine and its metabolites was 3.9% in EMs and 0.17% in PMs. The interindividual variability in analgesia of codeine which is related to genetically determined differences in the formation of morphine clearly indicate that this metabolite is responsible for the analgesic effect of codeine. In contrast to the analgesic effect, frequency and intensity of the adverse events did not present significant differences between the two phenotypes. These findings have implications for the clinical use of codeine. Since side effects occurred in both EM and PM subjects, the use of codeine as an analgesic will expose 7% to 10% of patients who are PMs to the side effects of the drug without providing any beneficial analgesic effects.

UNLABELLED: The most effective group of drugs for the treatment of severe pain is opioid analgesics. Their use, however, is limited by decreased effects in neuropathic and chronic pain as a result of increased pain and development of tolerance. Gabapentin (GBP) is effective in both experimental models of chronic pain and clinical studies of neuropathic pain. Therefore, we investigated, in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study, the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interaction of GBP and morphine in 12 healthy male volunteers. Morphine (60 mg, controlled release) or placebo was administered at 8:00 AM, and GBP (600 mg) or placebo was administered at 10:00 AM, thus comparing the analgesic effect of placebo + GBP (600 mg) with placebo + placebo and morphine (60 mg) + GBP in comparison to morphine plus placebo by using the cold pressor test. The duration and intensity of the side effects were assessed by using visual analog scales. The analgesic effect was evaluated by the change in the area under the curve (h x %; 0% baseline before Medication 1) of pain tolerance. Placebo + GBP (18.9% x h, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.5 to 40.3) did not present any significant analgesic effect compared with placebo + placebo (4.7% x h, 95% CI: -16.7 to 26.1). A significant increase in pain tolerance was observed comparing the combination of morphine and GBP (75.5% x h, 95% CI: 54.0-96.9) with morphine + placebo (40.6% x h, 95% CI: 19. 2-62.0). The observed adverse events after placebo + GBP were not significantly different compared with placebo + placebo. Morphine + placebo led to the expected opioid-mediated side effects. They were significantly more pronounced compared with placebo + placebo but did not differ significantly compared with the combination of morphine + GBP. Concerning the pharmacokinetic variables of morphine and its glucuronides, no significant difference between morphine + placebo and morphine + GBP was observed, whereas the area under the curve of GBP (43.9 +/- 5.3 vs 63.4 +/- 16.2 microg. h(-1). mL(-1), P < 0.05) significantly increased, and apparent oral clearance (230.8 +/- 29.4 mL/min vs 178 +/- 97.9 mL/min, P = 0.06) and apparent renal clearance (86.9 +/- 20.6 vs 73.0 +/- 24.2 mL/min, P = 0.067) of GBP decreased when morphine was administered concomitantly. These results suggest two different sites for the pharmacokinetic interaction-one at the level of absorption and the other at the level of elimination. Our study reveals both a pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interaction between morphine and GBP, leading to an increased analgesic effect of morphine + GBP. These results and the good tolerability of GBP should favor clinical trials investigating the clinical relevance of the combination of morphine and GBP for treating severe pain. IMPLICATIONS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial with 12 healthy volunteers, we studied the interaction of morphine and gabapentin using the cold pressor test. The anticonvulsant gabapentin enhanced the acute analgesic effect of morphine. Furthermore, the plasma concentration of gabapentin was increased when morphine was administered concomitantly. Therefore, the well tolerated combination of gabapentin and morphine may improve pain therapy, especially in pain states, like chronic and neuropathic pain, which respond poorly to opioids.

Improvement of uremic pruritus was reported under short-term administration of the mu-receptor antagonists naltrexone and naloxone. The aim of the present study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of the oral mu-receptor antagonist naltrexone during a 4-wk treatment period in patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. A placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study of uremic patients with persistent, treatment-resistant pruritus was performed. Of 422 patients screened between December 1997 and June 1998, 93 suffered from pruritus and 23 were eligible for the study. Patients were started either with a 4-wk naltrexone sequence (50 mg/d) or matched placebo. This was followed by a 7-d washout, and patients continued with a 4-wk sequence of the alternate medication. Pruritus intensity was scored daily by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and weekly by a detailed score assessing scratching activity, distribution of pruritus, and frequency of pruritus-related sleep disturbance. Sixteen of 23 patients completed the study. During the naltrexone period, pruritus decreased by 29.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.7 to 39.6) on the VAS and by 17.6% (95% CI, 4.2 to 31.1) on the detailed score. In comparison, pruritus decreased by 16.9% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.9) on the VAS and by 22.3% (95% CI, 9.3 to 35.2) on the detailed score during the placebo period. The difference between the naltrexone and the placebo treatment period was not statistically significant. Nine of 23 patients complained of gastrointestinal disturbances during the naltrexone period compared with only one of 23 patients during the placebo period (P < 0.05). These results show that treatment of uremic pruritus with naltrexone is ineffective. In addition, a high incidence of adverse effects was observed during treatment with naltrexone.