Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Opioids remain the major drug class for the treatment of acute, chronic and cancer pain, but have major harmful effects such as dependence and opioid-induced ventilatory impairment. Although no new typical opioids have come onto the market in the past almost 50 years, a plethora of new innovative formulations has been developed to meet the clinical need. This review is intended to shed light on new understanding of the molecular pharmacology of opioids, which has arisen largely due to the genomic revolution, and what new drugs may become available in the coming years. Atypical opioids have and are being developed which not only target the mu opioid receptor but other targets in the pain pathway. Biased mu agonists have been developed but remain ‘unbiased’ clinically. The contribution of drugs targeting non-mu opioid receptors either alone or as heterodimers shows potential promise but remains understudied. That gene splice variants of the mu opioid receptor produce multiple receptor isoforms in different brain regions, and may change with pain chronicity and phenotype, presents new challenges but also opportunities for precision pain medicine. Finally, that opioids also have pro-inflammatory effects not aligned with mu opioid receptor binding affinity implicates a fresh understanding of their role in chronic pain, whether cancer or non-cancer. Hopefully, a new understanding of opioid analgesic drug action may lead to new drug development and better precision medicine in acute and chronic pain relief with less patient harm.

Keywords

Anaesthesia pain acute cancer pharmacology pharmacodynamics reviews opioid

Introduction

Opioids remain the oldest group of drugs in the therapeutic armamentarium for pain relief. Over 4000 years ago Assyrian clay tablets contained instructions for collecting the juice of the poppy plant Papaver somniferum to treat pain, diarrhoea and insomnia, but with the harmful effect of addiction in some but not all users. Following Friedrich Sërturner’s isolation of morphine in 1817 and the European organic chemical synthesis revolution from the mid-19th century (e.g. diacetylmorphine 1874) to the early 20th century (e.g. oxycodone in 1916) in the now seemingly vain search for opioid analgesics without addictive effects, we now have over 30 opioids on the market worldwide. These can be broadly categorised into three chemical groups: 4,5-epoxymorphinans (e.g. morphine), 4-phenylpiperidines (e.g. fentanyl), and 3,3-diphenylpropylamines (e.g. methadone). Since the early 1960s, there have been very few new opioids marketed, but there have been many new and novel formulations, mainly because the ‘holy grail’ of pain relief without harmful effects (e.g. dependence, respiratory depression or the more encompassing opioid-induced ventilatory impairment) had not been achieved. This was based on the false belief that all opioids are essentially the same, so choosing the cheapest opioid for treatment was a rational approach. However, as with many old drugs, modern drug development bypassed these opioids, and we are now gaining a better understanding of key differences in their pharmacology. For example, QT prolongation and drug metabolism polymorphism were never part of the requirement for the regulatory approval of opioids, requiring researchers to make these discoveries and clinical recommendations in lieu of the pharmaceutical industry. The past 20 years has seen a revolution in our understanding of opioid drug action mainly driven by the great advances in molecular biology and pharmacology.

In this overview, we will review how these advances have impacted opioid pharmacology, from atypical opioids currently on the market to those in the pipeline, to the contentious biased mu agonist concept, mixed agonists, the ‘rediscovery’ of the role of delta and kappa receptors, to heterodimers and to genetics (including splice variants) and interactions with the immune system. Often, opioids have been the model substrates for contemporary basic and experimental investigations, mainly because of the potential translation to achieve the ‘holy grail’. Where possible, the clinical context and relevance have been briefly stated.

Atypical opioids

Typical opioids such as morphine, oxycodone, and fentanyl almost exclusively act on the mu opioid peptide (MOP) receptor. Although several old opioids are in reality ‘atypical opioids’, there has been renewed research into developing new opioids with an ‘atypical’ badge, mainly due to recognition that pain pathways comprise multiple biochemical elements and that addressing more than one element (e.g. MOP receptor) should improve efficacy but not necessarily safety. Some have been registered and others are in development. Here we review atypical opioids from a pharmacological and clinical perspective.

Tramadol

Tramadol was first introduced into the German market in the mid-1970s, and is the first truly developed atypical opioid. It has weak MOP receptor activity, requiring polymorphic CYP2D6 metabolism to the 400-fold more opioid active O-desmethyltramadol metabolite. In contrast, tramadol itself has inhibitory activity towards the serotonin transporter SLC6A4 (SERT) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) transporter SLC6A2 (NET), which particularly affects the descending inhibitory pain pathway.^1,2

Methadone

Methadone was developed in Germany during the Second World War and the MOP receptor has a high nanomolar (nM) affinity to methadone with the R enantiomer having a higher affinity than the S enantiomer. The opposite occurs for its interactions (S > R) with subunits of the ionotropic glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor at low micromolar concentrations, resulting in non-competitive NMDA receptor blockade.³ The NMDA receptor is considered important for the induction and maintenance of central sensitisation, especially its contribution to chronic pain states.⁴ Nevertheless, methadone is also effective for acute pain although its speed of onset is slow and it is considered a difficult drug to dose-titrate given its very long and variable half-life of one to five days, thus risking the potential for inadvertent accumulation and respiratory depression. However, it is now recognised that its major metabolism is via CYP2B6 and not CYP3A4 and, given the highly polymorphic nature and frequency of CYP2B6 poor metabolisers, pre-emptive genetic testing and actionable dosing needs to be investigated to try and improve its efficacy and safety profile, including the potential to cause torsades de pointes at high doses.

Buprenorphine

Buprenorphine was developed in the 1960s and is a very potent opioid with very high binding affinity for all three opioid receptors, mu (MOP), delta opioid peptide (DOP) and kappa opioid peptide (KOP). Its major metabolite, norbuprenorphine, has a similar high affinity to the MOP receptor but eight-fold less for delta and kappa receptors. Buprenorphine is often considered a partial agonist, mainly based on animal analgesic studies (an antagonist of delta and kappa receptors) but in humans, it acts more as a full agonist for analgesic effects and a partial agonist for respiratory effects, requiring larger and more prolonged naloxone doses to reverse respiratory depression.^5,6

Tapentadol

Tapentadol has activity at the MOP receptor but its affinity of 160 nM is about 20-fold greater than for morphine, and it has weak inhibitory action and binding to NET.⁷ These ‘relatively weak’ actions at the two targets are considered to produce a synergistic interaction for pain relief. Raffa and colleagues⁸ have calculated that the ‘µ-load’ was less than 40% compared to 100% for ‘pure’ opioids. Clinically this appears to translate into less severe gastrointestinal effects from immediate-release acute pain therapy,⁹ and lower odds of causing typical opioid adverse effects including respiratory depression and dependence.^10,11 Given its place in pain treatment is still being investigated, it remains too early to assign its advantages over ‘pure’ opioids such as morphine and oxycodone.

Cebranopadol

Cebranopadol is a mixed MOP receptor and nociceptin/orphanin FQ (F=phenylalanine; Q=glutamine) peptide (NOP) receptor (see below) full agonist having an affinity for NOP and MOP receptors of about 1 nM.¹² It is undergoing clinical trials for chronic pain, and for use in cancer pain over 26 weeks results indicate that a dose of up to 1 mg/day has some efficacy and adverse effects that are opioid related (e.g. gastrointestinal).¹³

In summary, we reached the full opioid agonist class of drugs over 50 years ago, but we now have some opioids which are atypical in that they have affinity for other targets at therapeutic concentrations, such as transporters (SERT, NET), and non-mu receptors (NOP, NMDA), all of which are associated with pain pathways and hence these could result in clinical synergy with the mu agonist component of the drug. Nevertheless, they will all show the typical major mu opioid adverse effects (e.g. respiratory depression, tolerance and dependence) depending on dose and patient characteristics. Hence careful selection of patient pain phenotype (nociceptive–neuropathic–nociplastic) and dose optimisation is likely to be warranted.

Biased mu agonism

MOP receptor agonists such as morphine are highly effective for the treatment of severe pain and are clinical mainstays for pain management.¹⁴ However, deaths due to overdose-induced respiratory depression have occurred on numerous occasions,^15–18 and their euphoric effects present a liability for the development of addiction. As mentioned, common clinical opioids exert analgesic effects by binding to endogenous MOP receptors in neuronal membranes to trigger signalling cascades. These cascades begin with G-protein activation and modulation of membrane ion channel behaviour along nociceptive pathways and central pain-processing centres to provide analgesia. However, prolonged activation of these receptors leads to recruitment of β-arrestin-2 (βarr2) which inhibits continued G-protein signalling, subsequently activating protein kinase cascades that can result in other opioid receptor—facilitated effects. Knockout animal studies have shown that recruitment of βarr2 underlies side-effects associated with mu opioid agonism including respiratory depression, constipation, nausea and addiction (Figure 1).^19–21 The coupling of MOP receptors to multiple signalling pathways makes them ideal targets for biased ligands that may favour G-protein interaction over recruitment of βarr2.²² In their seminal review, Gillis et al.²³ define a biased agonist as one that ‘… activates one signalling pathway downstream of a receptor more efficiently than it activates another, discrete signalling pathway of the same receptor … in comparison to reference ligands’. This has driven the research and development of biased MOP receptor ligands in an attempt to provide better, more sustainable analgesia devoid of serious adverse effects, and several drug candidates have already been investigated.^24–26

Figure 1.

Bias of mu opioid peptide (MOP) signalling pathways correlates with the analgesic and side-effects of opioids. (a) MOP receptor agonism by unbiased compounds such as morphine trigger signalling through both G-protein and β-arrestin-2 pathways. (b) Biased compounds such as oliceridine are intended to trigger the G-protein—mediated signalling to produce analgesia without side-effects caused by the β-arrestin-2 pathway.

Oliceridine

Oliceridine (also known as TRV130) is a central nervous system (CNS)-active G-protein—biased ligand that binds to the MOP receptor with a low nM affinity and provides similar maximal analgesic effects to morphine with higher potency in animal studies.^27,28 When assayed in vitro, oliceridine demonstrated G-protein signalling bias, reduced recruitment of βarr2, and reduced MOP receptor internalisation compared to morphine.^24,27 Similarly, in vivo it provided dose-dependent antinociception with similar maximum effects to morphine with approximately ten-fold greater potency and an improved side-effect profile.^24,29 These findings have since been replicated, confirming the G-protein bias and antinociceptive action of oliceridine, and its favourable tolerance development compared to morphine³⁰ and fentanyl.³¹ In contrast, others have shown gastrointestinal inhibition and abuse liability can still arise following repeated oliceridine administration similar to non-biased opioids such as fentanyl and oxycodone.^32–34 Many phase II and phase III clinical trials have shown oliceridine to provide equal or better analgesic effects than morphine for moderate to severe acute pain, with reduced adverse effects such as nausea, tolerance, gastrointestinal inhibition and respiratory depression.^{25,26,35–38} A phase III multicentre study of 718 patients reported oliceridine to provide a rapid reduction in the numerical pain score within 30 minutes of administration.³⁹ Common adverse effects reported included nausea (31%), constipation (11%) and vomiting (10%); however, 97% of patients reported none to mild withdrawal symptoms, and respiratory depression was found to be significantly lower when compared to morphine in a retrospective observational study.⁴⁰ Despite these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration approval for oliceridine was initially rejected in 2018 following concerns with dosing strategies aimed to treat moderate to severe pain, and side-effects associated with high doses. Following a 2020 resubmission, oliceridine (Olinvyk[insert trademark sign], Trevena, Inc., Chesterbrook, PA, USA) was approved for short-term intravenous usage in hospitals and other controlled settings when alternative treatment options are inadequate, although it is distributed with a boxed warning concerning abuse, misuse and potentially fatal respiratory depression. Although phase II and phase III trials have established oliceridine to provide potent analgesic effects, more definitive data are needed to demonstrate its improved respiratory and gastrointestinal profile compared to morphine.⁴¹ Further investigations are also recommended to understand better its safety in high-risk populations, and in patients with comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal and hepatic impairment.

Other compounds in development

PZM21 is another biased ligand discovered by using information on over three million commercially available compounds which dock to the MOP receptor binding pocket.⁴² In receptor binding studies it showed high affinity for MOP receptors and weak antagonistic KOP receptor activity. Functional studies revealed it to be a potent agonist in many G-protein—mediated signalling assays, while effectively having no impact on βarr2 recruitment.⁴³ Preclinical studies involving PZM21 have reported analgesia devoid of respiratory depression and G-protein activation bias similar to oliceridine.⁴³ However, there is also evidence to suggest it has low efficacy in G-protein activation, produces tolerance and depresses ventilation in rodents similar to classic opioids such as morphine.^44,45 Similar results were found in non-human primates with dose-dependent antinociceptive effects of PZM21 being tenfold less potent than oxycodone while exerting similar reinforcing effects.⁴⁶

SR17018 was one of a series of biased MOP receptor agonists tested in vivo for antinociceptive effectiveness versus ventilatory suppression. It displayed the highest G-protein signalling bias and ED₅₀ for respiratory depression among all compounds, and demonstrated a positive correlation between G-protein signalling bias, decreased ventilatory suppression and therapeutic efficacy.²¹ Compared to drugs such as fentanyl and SR11501 that exhibit an arrestin signalling bias, SR17018 showed a therapeutic window 25-fold higher.^21,47 Even at a high dose, SR17018 did not activate βarr2 signalling in vitro or block its recruitment by other MOP receptor agonists, suggesting that its administration may stabilise a configuration of the MOP receptor that has no affinity for βarr2.^21,48

SHR9352, a compound made through structural changes to oliceridine, has demonstrated high in vivo efficacy with high affinity for MOP receptor compared with delta and kappa receptors. Similar to oliceridine, it has a strong G-protein activation bias and limited βarr2 recruitment.⁴⁹

Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl is naturally derived from the Mitragyna speciosa plant with antinociceptive properties that have been investigated both in vitro and in vivo.^50,51 It is a partial MOP receptor agonist, and a competitive antagonist at kappa and delta opioid receptors that has also demonstrated G-protein bias.^52,53 In rodent studies, it provided potent antinociception devoid of reward, tolerance, respiratory depression and gastrointestinal inhibition,⁵³ demonstrating that biased MOP receptor agonism combined with kappa and delta opioid receptor antagonism may underlie opioid-induced analgesia without side-effects.⁵³ In humans, however, mitragynine has emerged as a drug of abuse. The risk posed by the drug from case studies involving mitragynine-related fatalities remains uncertain as simultaneous drug use prior to death is often reported.^54,55

In summary, highly selective MOP receptor agonism is effective in producing clinical analgesia, although it is also responsible for the side-effect profile associated with clinical opioids. G-protein bias at the MOP receptor has been widely asserted to characterise a novel and improved class of opioid analgesic based on the hypothesis that βarr2 signalling underlies the adverse effects of MOP receptor agonism.^19–22 However, this idea has recently been challenged^23,32 by studies in βarr2 knockout mice,⁵⁶ and mice expressing G-protein—biased MOP receptor⁵⁷ demonstrating failure of improvement in the therapeutic index of morphine. In addition, re-evaluation of lead G-protein—biased ligands showed they exhibited low intrinsic efficacy compared to morphine,⁵⁸ suggesting low-efficacy partial agonism may be responsible for improved therapeutic indices of these compounds rather than G-protein bias.^23,58 The use of structure-based drug screening and computational docking has been very effective in the identification and creation of biased MOP receptor ligands, and new drugs currently in development have demonstrated higher degrees of G-protein bias compared to oliceridine. However, more thorough research is needed to confirm the contribution of G-protein bias to the potentially improved therapeutic index provided by these compounds, along with rigorous animal and human in vivo testing to understand their potential for abuse. Future studies that link in vitro signalling pathway events and MOP receptor conformations during ligand binding to in vivo behaviour are also needed to understand better the differential effects of these compounds compared to unbiased opioids. The use of varied animal models during these assays must also be considered as the analgesic and side-effect profiles arising from MOP receptor agonism differ greatly between rodent models and primates.^46,59–61

Finally, from a thoughtful clinical perspective, Ballantyne and Chavkin in their topical review,⁶⁰ in which they focused on the adverse effects of respiratory depression, abuse potential and analgesic tolerance, concluded that it was ‘unclear’ whether ‘biased ligands will be the opioids of the future’. Indeed, unless there are multiple breakthroughs in opioid receptor pharmacology, it is very unlikely that a ‘pure’ MOP receptor biased ligand will suffice, and mixed/atypical ligands targeting other receptors (opioid and non-opioid) may be more fruitful as is the case of many other drug treatments of chronic conditions (e.g. cardiovascular, infectious disease, psychiatric).

Other opioid receptors

Although the MOP receptor is the primary receptor to be targeted for the relief of moderate to severe acute and chronic pain, some of the other known opioid receptors have analgesic and conversely adverse effects which need to be considered in the individual patient as all opioids target these other receptors to varying degrees.

The NOP receptor is considered the fourth opioid receptor whose function remains to be extensively investigated. It is found in the same neuronal pathways as opioid receptors and inhibits neuronal transmission. In animals, activation causes antinociceptive effects spinally, supraspinally and systemically,⁶² and when combined with opioids has a synergistic effect on antinociception. NOP agonists have neither respiratory depressant nor reinforcing effects, the latter highlighting the potential for non-addictive behavioural effects. Full co-agonists of both MOP and NOP receptors, which have been developed, are likely to have these effects. Attempts are being made to generate not full but partial agonists such as AT-121, which in animal studies does not induce these unwanted ‘mu opioid’ effects. In their study, Ding et al. suggested that ‘bifunctional NOP/MOP agonists with the appropriate balance of NOP and MOP agonist activity may provide a dual therapeutic action for safe and effective pain relief and treating prescription opioid abuse’.⁶² Other similar partial agonists such as BU08028 and BU10038 are in development.⁶³

Recently DOP has attracted interest in the field of acute migraine. DOP is structurally closely related to the MOP receptor but its cellular distribution remains to be firmly delineated.⁶⁴ DOP activation appears to cause less respiratory depression, gastrointestinal motility disturbance and sedation than that for mu receptor activation, and its euphoric effects and physical dependence propensity are also minor.⁶⁵ TRV250 is a small-molecule DOP agonist of preferential selectivity for G-protein signalling and targeted for acute migraine, and a first-in-man study has been published.⁶⁶ It is also being trialled for other pain conditions such as acute and chronic pain (knee osteoarthritis), postherpetic neuralgia and depression,⁶⁷ but evidence of efficacy in these areas seems to have resulted in abandonment of further investigations.

KOP activation produces some degree of peripheral analgesia but produces dysphoria and hallucinations⁶⁵ and diuresis.⁶⁸ Hence there is minimal if no current interest in development for therapeutics.

In summary, from a clinical perspective it is unlikely that we will see any new opioids that solely target these receptors.

Other pain targets

The expression, signalling and desensitisation of opioid receptors is affected by their interactions with other G-protein—coupled receptors (GPCRs) such as chemokine receptors, which play a major role in many processes including inflammation through altering immune cell migration.^69,70 Opioid peptides activate ACKR3 (a member of the atypical chemokine receptor family and formerly known as CXCR7), which appears to be a negative regulator of opioid peptide (mainly dynorphin) function and is proposed as an opioid scavenger receptor.⁶⁹ Understanding of its role in opioid action is still very much in its infancy but does highlight the likelihood that future drug development of pain therapeutics will include an array of drugs targeting receptors often not considered important, particularly in the field of chemokine pharmacology.

FF3 is an opioid analogue of fentanyl designed to reduce pain by activating, in a selective manner, peripheral MOP receptors in inflamed, that is acidic, tissues.⁷¹ In rat models of various pain phenotypes (e.g. postoperative, neuropathic) given at low doses, it elicited the desired effects, but at higher doses it produced the typical opioid effects of sedation, respiratory depression, reward and constipation. Pharmacokinetic studies are clearly needed, especially if transdermal formulations are being considered for local analgesia.

ZH853, an endomorphin analogue, does not elicit pro-inflammatory effects (as opposed to most opioids—see below), has a long duration of action in aimals, and has been shown to have reduced effects on abuse liability, respiratory sequelae, motor impairment, and glial activation.⁷² This was based on the findings of Grace et al.,⁷³ who showed that in animal models of neuropathic pain, morphine prolongs pro-inflammatory signalling in the spinal cord dorsal horn. Feehan and Zadina, using an animal model of chronic pain, showed that ZH853 reduced both the time spent in chronic pain and pain severity compared to morphine, and proposed clinical development ‘for inflammatory and postoperative pain’.⁷⁴ This highly interesting area of glial activation, pro-inflammation and opioids has opened up new vistas as to how we view opioids, especially from a chronic clinical pain context and perspective.

Splice variants and multiple isoforms

This is an exciting new area of opioid drug discovery and development that may provide the clinician with a greater understanding of opioid actions (good and bad) in the individual patient.

During transcription, genes that encode GPCRs can be processed differently, resulting in multiple versions of the final messenger RNA, called splice variants.⁷⁵ This can result in specific domains of the receptor being missing or abnormal domains being added, resulting in a range of isoforms, each potentially activating a different downstream signalling pathway. Added to this complexity is that the range of isoforms can be tissue specific. Marti-Solano et al.,⁷⁶ through a series of elegant studies, showed that almost half of the human GPCRs that are targets of US Food and Drug Administration—approved drugs have more than one isoform, and in many instances each of the isoforms for a given receptor has a different tissue distribution. MOP receptor isoforms from splice variants have been known for over 20 years.⁷⁷ Marti-Solano et al. showed that OPRM (opioid receptor mu; the mRNA of the MOP receptor) had three unique combinations of isoforms across four different human tissues. These findings also raised the potential of MOP receptor isoform expression in different tissues and sites (e.g. neurons in different sites within the CNS, glia) to change over time (e.g. acute to chronic pain) and therefore to display different phenotypes (nociceptive versus neuropathic versus nociplastic versus combination). Thus, opioid drugs may need to be both receptor subtype (e.g. MOP, DOP), and isoform selective.⁷⁵ Translating this clinically for the individual pain patient would represent the pinnacle of precision medicine for pain relief.

Heterodimers

GPCRs such as the MOP receptor can exist as a homodimer (e.g. two MOP receptors linked) but also as a heterodimer (two different receptors linked such as MOP/NOP or MOP/cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1)). They have been constructed in cell lines and in vitro functional activity has been obtained. For example, the DOP component of MOP/DOP appears to exert an antagonistic effect on MOP receptor function and may have distinct intracellular signalling and trafficking outcomes and co-expression in specific neuronal populations in the spinal cord, but not in other sites.⁷⁸ Chronic morphine use appears to upregulate the expression of the MOP/DOP heterodimer.⁷⁹ Compound CYM5010 that targets the heterodimer was analgesic in various animal models including for neuropathic pain, and also showed less tolerance, but its potential clinical development is not apparent. There are also MOP/KOP heterodimers and heterodimers with other receptors such as with galanin receptor 1 and CB1,⁸⁰ but whether specific ligands and clinical translation can be developed appears to remain in the far distant future.

Opioimmunomodulation

In addition to opioid activity at neuronal opioid receptors, there is now extensive evidence that opioids interact with our immune system. Early indications of an opioid-immune interaction came from observations of apparent opioid immunosuppressive effects on the peripheral immune system.⁸¹ Conversely, immunocompetent cells of the brain and spinal cord, the glia (astrocytes and microglia), are activated following prolonged exposure to opioids. Extensive preclinical evidence now supports that this opioid-induced glial activation and production of pro-inflammatory mediators contributes to opioid-induced tolerance, hyperalgesia and allodynia. This suggests an opportunity to separate the negative effects of opioids from their analgesic effects, either via novel opioid pharmacology (e.g. opioid agonists with reduced innate immune activation potential) or adjuvant therapy (e.g. modulation of relevant immunology).

Opioid interactions with immune cell receptors

MOP, DOP, KOP and NOP receptor mRNA have been detected in human peripheral immune cells, although not consistently, and at low levels relative to neuronal tissue, with less support for expression on glia.⁸² Evidence of functional effects of opioids at classic opioid receptors in primary immune cells is also equivocal, while opioid receptor triple (mu, delta, kappa) knockout mice still develop hyperalgesia with sustained morphine, oxymorphone or fentanyl exposure, indicating an opioid receptor—independent mechanism.^83,84 This is supported by in vitro studies demonstrating that structurally diverse opioids (including the clinically relevant agonists morphine, fentanyl, remifentanil, methadone, oxycodone, buprenorphine, meperidine and antagonists naloxone and naltrexone) interact with Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) (an innate immune pattern recognition receptor with a major role in central immune mechanisms of pathological pain)⁸⁵ and/or its accessory protein myeloid differentiation protein 2 (MD2).^86–89

MOP agonists and antagonists tend to be TLR4/MD2 agonists and antagonists, respectively; however, the potencies are not necessarily correlated. For example, morphine-3-glucuronide displays significant TLR4 activity, but no opioid receptor activity, while the opioid active morphine-6-glucuronide is devoid of TLR4 activity (Figure 2).⁸⁷

Figure 2.

(a) Opioid interactions with glial Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)/myeloid differentiation protein 2 (MD2), consequent intracellular signalling cascades and cytokine release proposed to contribute to opioid-induced analgesic tolerance, hyperalgesia, allodynia and withdrawal. (b) Mu-opioid peptide (MOP) receptor agonist (rank-order in vitro affinity(unpublished)) and antagonist versus rank-order in vitro TLR4/MD2 activation and inhibition of different opioids.⁸⁶ LPS: lipopolysaccharide (endotoxin); M3G and M6G: morphine-3-glucuronide and morphine-6-glucuronide, respectively; TIRAP: Toll-interleukin-1 receptor (TIR) domain-containing adaptor protein; TRIF: TIR domain-containing adaptor protein-inducing interferon-beta; TRAM: TRIF-related adaptor molecule; NF-κB: nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells.

Importantly, opioid agonists and antagonists act non-stereoselectively at TLR4/MD2 (compared to (–)-isomer selectivity of classical opioid receptors), providing an opportunity for the use of (+)-isomers of opioid antagonists (e.g. (+)-naloxone, (+)-naltrexone) to block the negative effects of opioimmunomodulation while maintaining MOP receptor activity and analgesia.^87,88,90

In addition to high expression on glia, particularly microglia, TLR4 is found in rat isolated dorsal root ganglion neurons⁹¹ and primary rat CNS endothelial cells.⁹² Whether opioids interact directly with other non-opioid innate immune cell receptors (e.g. other pattern recognition receptors such as TLR2), and the degree of cross-talk between MOP and TLR4 signalling, is an area of open investigation.^93,94

Preclinical in vivo opioimmunomodulation

In rodents, morphine exposure (three to nine days) results in significant activation of glial cells and increases in spinal cord and brain expression of key innate immune signalling receptors and pro-inflammatory cytokines.^93,95–106 While a major component of this immune activation is likely to be via direct actions of opioids on immune cells, there is preclinical evidence that neuronally derived peptides and chemokines can also contribute to indirect glial activation and tolerance following morphine administration.^107–109 Regardless of whether opioid activation of innate immune cells is direct or indirect, there is now extensive preclinical evidence that inhibition of this activation or subsequent pro-inflammatory signalling can mitigate multiple negative effects of repeat opioid exposure. For example, pre- or co-administration of TLR4/MD2 antagonists, glial cell inhibitors or pro-inflammatory cytokine signalling inhibitors, as well as anti-inflammatory signalling enhancement, attenuates the development of analgesic tolerance, hyperalgesia, allodynia and withdrawal behaviours following repeated morphine exposure in rodent nociceptive pain^{86,87,95,98–106,110,111}and nerve injury^{88,101,103,112,113} models.

TLR4/MD2 antagonists, TLR4 genetic knockout, glial cell inhibitors and inhibitors of spinal cytokine signalling, also potentiate acute morphine analgesia in rodent nociceptive pain models,^{86,87,104–106,114,115} supporting a role for opioimmunomodulation in acute opioid analgesia.

Preclinical research in this area has focused almost entirely on morphine; however, as expected from in vitro data,⁸⁷ single studies of methadone,¹⁰⁵ fentanyl,¹¹⁶ and oxycodone¹¹⁶ demonstrate similar potential to morphine for the development of analgesic tolerance, hyperalgesia and allodynia, or exacerbating nociceptive hypersensitivity in rat models of nerve injury. Furthermore, glial, TLR4 and cytokine inhibition potentiated acute methadone,¹⁰⁵ oxycodone¹⁰⁴ and remifentanil⁸⁹ analgesia. Therefore, opioid-immune interactions are not just restricted to morphine and the 4,5-epoxymorphinans.

Clinical evidence for potential therapeutic improvement through modified opioimmunomodulation

Directly demonstrating the importance of opioimmunomodulation to clinical pain management is in its early stages. Innate immunoreactivity of peripheral blood immune cells is significantly modified in chronic pain patients on opioids, compared to chronic pain patients not on opioids and pain-free controls.¹¹⁷ Clinical genetics studies have also identified polymorphisms in innate immune signalling pathway genes that contribute to interpatient variability in pain and opioid response in postoperative and cancer pain patients.^118,119

Disparities in agonist/antagonist structure–activity relationships and potencies for MOP receptors versus TLR4/MD2 have raised the possibility of developing novel opioid analgesics that maximise MOP receptor, and minimise TLR4/MD2, activity.⁸⁷ However, this has yet to be realised. There is also the potential to mitigate the immunopharmacology of current opioids via adjuvants that block opioid central immune activation. Several TLR4 antagonists and glial modulators shown to reduce opioid-induced tolerance, hyperalgesia and allodynia preclinically are clinically available for other indications and as such have the potential to be repurposed. Some have been trialled, or are undergoing clinical trials, as potential novel analgesics in their own right, or to prevent persistent postoperative pain. However, aside from low-dose naltrexone, which has demonstrated some success in fibromyalgia, they (e.g. minocycline, propentofylline) have so far shown only limited efficacy.¹²⁰ In terms of improving the clinical efficacy of opioids, ultralow-dose naltrexone reduces postoperative opioid requirements and opioid-related side-effects.¹²¹ Pre-surgery pentoxifylline also decreases postoperative opioid requirements,^122,123 while ibudilast has shown some potential for reducing opioid withdrawal symptoms and enhancing the analgesic effects of oxycodone in opioid-dependent patients.^124,125

Conclusion

The search for new opioids with reduced adverse effects, especially opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and addiction, has continued unabated over the past decade following the hiatus in the late 20th century. This has come about by a greater understanding of the molecular pharmacology of these drugs driven by the genomic revolution. It is now apparent that not all opioids are the same. The future is likely to see more atypical opioids, biased agonism being better studied as we gain a greater understanding of intracellular events, sophisticated and novel heterodimer drugs, and exploitation of the contribution of opioimmunopharmacology to current opioid actions. Other effects such as opioid-induced hyperalgesia¹²⁶ and endocrine dysfunction¹²⁷ have not been investigated clinically with many of the newer analgesic drugs. This may be due to these effects occurring after longer periods of dosing than in the current trials, and also that they may not be considered as important as the respiratory and addictive effects. Hopefully, the fine tuning in analgesic drug action and development described in this overview will allow for better precision medicine in acute and chronic pain management with less patient harm.

Footnotes

Author Contribution(s)

Andrew A Somogyi: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Stefan T Musolino: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Daniel T Barratt: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Andrew A Somogyi

Stefan T Musolino

Daniel T Barratt

References

Shao

Abolin

Hewitt

, et al. Derivatives of tramadol for increased duration of effect. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2006; 16: 691–694. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2005.10.024

Shao

Hewitt

Jerussi

, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of O-alkyl derivatives of tramadol. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2008; 18: 1674–1680. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2008.01.051

Callahan

Paul

, et al. Functional inhibition by methadone of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes: stereospecific and subunit effects. Anesth Analg 2004; 98: 653–659. doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000099723.75548.df

Petrenko

Yamakura

Baba

, et al. The role of N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in pain: a review. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 1108–1116. doi:10.1213/01.ANE.0000081061.12235.55

Dahan

Aarts

Smith

TW.

Incidence, reversal, and prevention of opioid-induced respiratory depression. Anesthesiology 2010; 112: 226–238. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181c38c25

Dahan

Opioid-induced respiratory effects: new data on buprenorphine. Palliat Med 2006; 20 (Suppl 1(8_suppl)): s3–s8.

Tzschentke

Christoph

Kogel

BY.

The mu-opioid receptor agonist/noradrenaline reuptake inhibition (MOR-NRI) concept in analgesia: the case of tapentadol. CNS Drugs 2014; 28: 319–329. doi:10.1007/s40263-014-0151-9

Raffa

Elling

Tzschentke

TM.

Does ‘strong analgesic’equal ‘strong opioid’? Tapentadol and the concept of ‘µ-load’. Adv Therapy 2018; 35: 1471–1484.

Wang

Narayan

Penm

, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol immediate release for acute pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain 2020; 36: 399–409. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000809

10.

Channell

Schug

Toxicity of tapentadol: a systematic review. Pain Manag 2018; 8: 327–339. doi:10.2217/pmt-2018-0027

11.

Freynhagen

Elling

Radic

, et al. Safety of tapentadol compared with other opioids in chronic pain treatment: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled and withdrawal trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2021; 37: 89–100. doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1832977

12.

Tzschentke

Linz

Koch

, et al. Cebranopadol: a novel first-in-class potent analgesic acting via NOP and opioid receptors. In: Ko

Caló

(eds) The Nociceptin/Orphanin FQ Peptide Receptor. Switzerland: Springer, 2019, pp. 367–398. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20186-9

13.

Koch

Kapanadze

Eerdekens

, et al. Cebranopadol, a novel first-in-class analgesic drug candidate: first experience with cancer-related pain for up to 26 weeks. J Pain Symptom Manage 2019; 58: 390–399. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.05.012

14.

Melnikova

Pain market. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010: 9: 589–590. doi:10.1038/nrd3226

15.

Rudd

Seth

David

, et al. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths – United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016; 65: 1445–1452. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm655051e1

16.

Scholl

Seth

Kariisa

, et al. Drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths – United States, 2013–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019; 67: 1419–1427.

17.

Lam

Kuhn

Hayman

, et al. Recent trends in heroin and pharmaceutical opioid-related harms in Victoria, Australia up to 2018. Addiction 2020; 115: 261–269. doi:10.1111/add.14784

18.

Sonnerborn

Opioids and benzodiazepines: the risk of death. Austr Nursing Midwif J 2019; 26: 62.

19.

Azzam

AAH

McDonald

Lambert

DG.

Hot topics in opioid pharmacology: mixed and biased opioids. Br J Anaesth 2019; 122: e136–e145. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.006

20.

Bohn

Lefkowitz

Gainetdinov

, et al. Enhanced morphine analgesia in mice lacking beta-arrestin 2. Science 1999; 286: 2495–2498. doi:10.1126/science.286.5449.2495

21.

Schmid

Kennedy

Ross

, et al. Bias factor and therapeutic window correlate to predict safer opioid analgesics. Cell 2017; 171: 1165–1175.e13. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.035

22.

Kelly

Efficacy and ligand bias at the μ-opioid receptor. Br J Pharmacol 2013; 169: 1430–1446. doi:10.1111/bph.12222

23.

Gillis

Kliewer

Kelly

, et al. Critical assessment of G protein-biased agonism at the μ-opioid receptor. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2020; 41: 947–959. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2020.09.009.2020.

24.

DeWire

Yamashita

, et al. AG protein-biased ligand at the μ-opioid receptor is potently analgesic with reduced gastrointestinal and respiratory dysfunction compared with morphine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2013; 344: 708–717. doi:10.1124/jpet.112.201616.

25.

Soergel

Subach

Burnham

, et al. Biased agonism of the mu-opioid receptor by TRV130 increases analgesia and reduces on-target adverse effects versus morphine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Pain 2014; 155: 1829–1835. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.06.011

26.

Viscusi

Webster

Kuss

, et al. A randomized, phase 2 study investigating TRV130, a biased ligand of the mu-opioid receptor, for the intravenous treatment of acute pain. Pain 2016; 157: 264–272. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000363

27.

Chen

X-T

Pitis

Liu

, et al. Structure–activity relationships and discovery of a G protein biased μ opioid receptor ligand, [(3-methoxythiophen-2-yl) methyl]({2-[(9 R)-9-(pyridin-2-yl)-6-oxaspiro-[4.5] decan-9-yl] ethyl}) amine (TRV130), for the treatment of acute severe pain. J Med Chem 2013; 56: 8019–8031. doi:10.1021/jm4010829

28.

Schneider

Provasi

Filizola

How oliceridine (TRV-130) binds and stabilizes a μ-opioid receptor conformational state that selectively triggers G protein signaling pathways. Biochemistry 2016; 55: 6456–6466. doi:10.1021/acs.biochem.6b00948

29.

DeWire

Ahn

Lefkowitz

, et al. Beta-arrestins and cell signaling. Annu Rev Physiol 2007; 69: 483–510. doi:10.1146/annurev.physiol.69.022405.154749

30.

Liang

Nwaneshiudu

, et al . Pharmacological characters of oliceridine, a mu-opioid receptor g-protein-biased ligand in mice. Anesth Analg 2019; 129: 1414–1421. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000003662

31.

Mori

Kuzumaki

Arima

, et al. Usefulness for the combination of G-protein- and beta-arrestin-biased ligands of mu-opioid receptors: prevention of antinociceptive tolerance. Mol Pain 2017; 13: 1744806917740030. doi:10.1177/1744806917740030

32.

Altarifi

David

Muchhala

, et al. Effects of acute and repeated treatment with the biased mu opioid receptor agonist TRV130 (oliceridine) on measures of antinociception, gastrointestinal function, and abuse liability in rodents. J Psychopharmacol 2017; 31: 730–739. doi:10.1177/0269881116689257

33.

Zamarripa

Edwards

Qureshi

, et al. The G-protein biased mu-opioid agonist, TRV130, produces reinforcing and antinociceptive effects that are comparable to oxycodone in rats. Drug Alcohol Depend 2018; 192: 158–162. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.08.002

34.

Schwienteck

Faunce

Rice

, et al. Effectiveness comparisons of G-protein biased and unbiased mu opioid receptor ligands in warm water tail-withdrawal and drug discrimination in male and female rats. Neuropharmacology 2019; 150: 200–209. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.01.020

35.

Singla

Minkowitz

Soergel

, et al. A randomized, phase IIb study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a novel micro-receptor G-protein pathway selective (mu-GPS) modulator, for the management of moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty. J Pain Res 2017; 10: 2413–2424. doi:10.2147/JPR.S137952

36.

Dahan

van Dam

Niesters

, et al. Benefit and risk evaluation of biased mu-receptor agonist oliceridine versus morphine. Anesthesiology 2020; 133: 559–568. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000003441

37.

Viscusi

Skobieranda

Soergel

, et al. APOLLO-1: a randomized placebo and active-controlled phase III study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a G protein-biased ligand at the µ-opioid receptor, for management of moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy. J Pain Res 2019; 12: 927–943. doi:10.2147/JPR.S171013

38.

Singla

Skobieranda

Soergel

, et al. APOLLO‐2: a randomized, placebo and active-controlled phase III study investigating oliceridine (TRV 130), a G protein-biased ligand at the μ-opioid receptor, for management of moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty. Pain Practice 2019; 19: 715–731.

39.

Bergese

Brzezinski

Hammer

, et al. ATHENA: a phase 3, open-label study of the safety and effectiveness of oliceridine (TRV130), a G-protein selective agonist at the µ-opioid receptor, in patients with moderate to severe acute pain requiring parenteral opioid therapy. J Pain Res 2019; 12: 3113–3126. doi:10.2147/JPR.S217563

40.

Bergese

Berkowitz

Rider

, et al. Low incidence of postoperative respiratory depression with oliceridine compared to morphine: a retrospective chart analysis. Pain Res Manag 2020; 2020: 7492865. doi:10.1155/2020/7492865

41.

Eleswarpu

Habib

AS.

Oliceridine in the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. Pain Manag 2021; 11: 237–248. doi:10.2217/pmt-2020-0087

42.

Manglik

Kruse

Kobilka

, et al. Crystal structure of the micro-opioid receptor bound to a morphinan antagonist. Nature 2012; 485: 321–326. doi:10.1038/nature10954

43.

Manglik

Lin

Aryal

, et al. Structure-based discovery of opioid analgesics with reduced side effects. Nature 2016; 537: 185–190. doi:10.1038/nature19112

44.

Hill

Disney

Conibear

, et al. The novel mu-opioid receptor agonist PZM21 depresses respiration and induces tolerance to antinociception. Br J Pharmacol 2018; 175: 2653–2661. doi:10.1111/bph.14224

45.

Kudla

Bugno

Skupio

, et al. Functional characterization of a novel opioid, PZM21, and its effects on the behavioural responses to morphine. Br J Pharmacol 2019; 176: 4434–4445. doi:10.1111/bph.14805

46.

Ding

Kiguchi

Perrey

, et al. Antinociceptive, reinforcing, and pruritic effects of the G-protein signalling-biased mu opioid receptor agonist PZM21 in non-human primates. Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: 596–604. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.057

47.

Tan

Yan

McCorvy

, et al. Biased ligands of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs): structure–functional selectivity relationships (SFSRs) and therapeutic potential. J Med Chem 2018; 61: 9841–9878. doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00435

48.

Majumdar

Devi

LA.

Strategy for making safer opioids bolstered. Nature 2018; 553: 286–288. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-00045-1.

49.

Chen

, et al. Discovery of SHR9352: a highly potent G protein-biased mu-opioid receptor agonist. ACS Omega 2017; 2: 9261–9267. doi:10.1021/acsomega.7b01452

50.

Matsumoto

Mizowaki

Suchitra

, et al. Antinociceptive action of mitragynine in mice: evidence for the involvement of supraspinal opioid receptors. Life Sci 1996; 59: 1149–1155. doi:10.1016/0024-3205(96)00432-8

51.

Takayama

Ishikawa

Kurihara

, et al. Studies on the synthesis and opioid agonistic activities of mitragynine-related indole alkaloids: discovery of opioid agonists structurally different from other opioid ligands. J Med Chem 2002; 45: 1949–1956. doi:10.1021/jm010576e

52.

Kruegel

Gassaway

Kapoor

, et al. Synthetic and receptor signaling explorations of the mitragyna alkaloids: mitragynine as an atypical molecular framework for opioid receptor modulators. J Am Chem Soc 2016; 138: 6754–6764. doi:10.1021/jacs.6b00360

53.

Váradi

Marrone

Palmer

, et al. Mitragynine/corynantheidine pseudoindoxyls as opioid analgesics with mu agonism and delta antagonism, which do not recruit β-arrestin-2. J Med Chem 2016; 59: 8381–8397. doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00748

54.

Karinen

Fosen

Rogde

, et al. An accidental poisoning with mitragynine. Forensic Sci Int 2014; 245: e29–e32. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.10.025

55.

Kronstrand

Roman

Thelander

, et al. Unintentional fatal intoxications with mitragynine and O-desmethyltramadol from the herbal blend krypton. J Anal Toxicol 2011; 35: 242–247. doi:10.1093/anatox/35.4.242

56.

Kliewer

Gillis

Hill

, et al. Morphine-induced respiratory depression is independent of β-arrestin2 signalling. Br J Pharmacol 2020; 177: 2923–2931. doi:10.1111/bph.15004

57.

Kliewer

Schmiedel

Sianati

, et al. Phosphorylation-deficient G-protein-biased mu-opioid receptors improve analgesia and diminish tolerance but worsen opioid side effects. Nat Commun 2019; 10: 367. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08162-1

58.

Gillis

Gondin

Kliewer

, et al. Low intrinsic efficacy for G protein activation can explain the improved side effect profiles of new opioid agonists. Science Signal 2020; 13: 1–18. doi:ARTNeaaz314010.1126/scisignal.aaz3140

59.

Conibear

Kelly

A biased view of mu-opioid receptors?

Mol Pharmacol 2019; 96: 542–549. doi:10.1124/mol.119.115956

60.

Ballantyne

Chavkin

Will biased ligands be the opioids of the future?

Pain 2020; 161: 1945–1948.

61.

Lee

Naughton

Woods

, et al. Characterization of scratching responses in rats following centrally administered morphine or bombesin. Behav Pharmacol 2003; 14: 501–508. doi:10.1097/01.fbp.0000095082.80017.0f

62.

Ding

Kiguchi

Yasuda

, et al. A bifunctional nociceptin and mu opioid receptor agonist is analgesic without opioid side effects in nonhuman primates. Sci Transl Med 2018; 10: eaar3483. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aar3483

63.

Kiguchi

Ding

MC.

Therapeutic potentials of NOP and MOP receptor coactivation for the treatment of pain and opioid abuse. J Neurosci Res 2020; 10.1002/jnr.24624. doi:10.1002/jnr.24624.

64.

Quirion

Bergeron

Blais

, et al. The delta-opioid receptor; a target for the treatment of pain. Front Mol Neurosci 2020; 13: 52. doi:10.3389/fnmol.2020.00052

65.

Rang

Ritter

Flower

, et al. Rang and Dale's pharmacology, 8th ed. London: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, 2016.

66.

Fossler

Schmith

Greene

, et al. A phase I, randomized, single blind, placebo controlled, single ascending dose study of the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous and oral TRV250, a G protein-selective delta receptor agonist, in healthy subjects. CNS Drugs 2020; 34: 853–865. doi:10.1007/s40263-020-00738-0

67.

Chung

PCS

Kieffer

BL.

Delta opioid receptors in brain function and diseases. Pharmacol Ther 2013; 140: 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.06.003

68.

Dykstra

Gmerek

Winger

, et al. Kappa opioids in rhesus monkeys. I. Diuresis, sedation, analgesia and discriminative stimulus effects. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1987; 242: 413–420.

69.

Meyrath

Szpakowska

Zeiner

, et al. The atypical chemokine receptor ACKR3/CXCR7 is a broad-spectrum scavenger for opioid peptides. Nat Commun 2020; 11: 3033. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16664-0

70.

Aloyouny

Bepari

Rahman

Evaluating the role of CXCR3 in pain modulation: a literature review. J Pain Res 2020; 13: 1987–2001. doi:10.2147/JPR.S254276

71.

Spahn

Del Vecchio

Rodriguez-Gaztelumendi

, et al. Opioid receptor signaling, analgesic and side effects induced by a computationally designed pH-dependent agonist. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 8965. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27313-4

72.

Zadina

Nilges

Morgenweck

, et al. Endomorphin analog analgesics with reduced abuse liability, respiratory depression, motor impairment, tolerance, and glial activation relative to morphine. Neuropharmacology 2016; 105: 215–227. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.12.024

73.

Grace

Strand

Galer

, et al. Morphine paradoxically prolongs neuropathic pain in rats by amplifying spinal NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016; 113: E3441–E3450. doi:10.1073/pnas.1602070113

74.

Feehan

Zadina

JE.

Morphine immunomodulation prolongs inflammatory and postoperative pain while the novel analgesic ZH853 accelerates recovery and protects against latent sensitization. J Neuroinflammation 2019; 16: 1–20. doi: 10.1186/s12974-019-1480-x

75.

Snyder

Rajagopal

Isoforms of GPCR proteins combine for diverse signalling. Nature 2020; 587: 553–554. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03001-0

76.

Marti-Solano

Crilly

Malinverni

, et al. Combinatorial expression of GPCR isoforms affects signalling and drug responses. Nature 2020; 587: 650–656. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2888-2

77.

Pan

Bolan

, et al. Identification and characterization of three new alternatively spliced mu-opioid receptor isoforms. Mol Pharmacol 1999; 56: 396–403. doi:10.1124/mol.56.2.396

78.

Wang

Tawfik

Corder

, et al. Functional divergence of delta and mu opioid receptor organization in CNS pain circuits. Neuron 2018; 98: 90–108 e5. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.002

79.

Gupta

Mulder

Gomes

, et al. Increased abundance of opioid receptor heteromers after chronic morphine administration. Sci Signal 2010; 3: ra54. doi:10.1126/scisignal.2000807

80.

Zhang

Hang

, et al. Mu opioid receptor heterodimers emerge as novel therapeutic targets: recent progress and future perspective. Front Pharmacol 2020; 11: 1078. doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.01078

81.

Plein

Rittner

HL.

Opioids and the immune system – friend or foe. Br J Pharmacol 2018; 175: 2717–2725. doi:10.1111/bph.13750

82.

Machelska

Celik

MO.

Opioid receptors in immune and glial cells – implications for pain control.

Front Immunol 2020; 11: 300. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.00300

83.

Juni

Klein

Pintar

, et al. Nociception increases during opioid infusion in opioid receptor triple knock-out mice. Neuroscience 2007; 147: 439–444. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.04.030

84.

Waxman

Arout

Caldwell

, et al. Acute and chronic fentanyl administration causes hyperalgesia independently of opioid receptor activity in mice. Neurosci Lett 2009; 462: 68–72. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2009.06.061

85.

Grace

Hutchinson

Maier

, et al. Pathological pain and the neuroimmune interface. Nat Rev Immunol 2014; 14: 217–231. doi:10.1038/nri3621

86.

Wang

Loram

Ramos

, et al. Morphine activates neuroinflammation in a manner parallel to endotoxin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012; 109: 6325–6330. doi:10.1073/pnas.1200130109

87.

Hutchinson

Zhang

Shridhar

, et al. Evidence that opioids may have toll-like receptor 4 and MD-2 effects. Brain Behav Immun 2010; 24: 83–95. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2009.08.004

88.

Hutchinson

Zhang

Brown

, et al. Non-stereoselective reversal of neuropathic pain by naloxone and naltrexone: involvement of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4). Eur J Neurosci 2008; 28: 20–29. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06321.x

89.

Hutchinson

Northcutt

Hiranita

, et al. Opioid activation of toll-like receptor 4 contributes to drug reinforcement. J Neurosci 2012; 32: 11187–11200. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0684-12.2012

90.

Watkins

Hutchinson

Rice

, et al. The “toll” of opioid-induced glial activation: improving the clinical efficacy of opioids by targeting glia. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2009; 30: 581–591. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2009.08.002

91.

Due

Piekarz

Wilson

, et al. Neuroexcitatory effects of morphine-3-glucuronide are dependent on Toll-like receptor 4 signaling. J Neuroinflammation 2012; 9: 200. doi:10.1186/1742-2094-9-200

92.

Grace

Ramos

Rodgers

, et al. Activation of adult rat CNS endothelial cells by opioid-induced toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling induces proinflammatory, biochemical, morphological, and behavioral sequelae. Neuroscience 2014; 280: 299–317. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.09.020

93.

Zhang

Sun

, et al. Essential role of toll-like receptor 2 in morphine-induced microglia activation in mice. Neurosci Lett 2011; 489: 43–47. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2010.11.063

94.

Zhang

Yang

Chen

, et al. Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)/opioid receptor pathway crosstalk and impact on opioid analgesia, immune function, and gastrointestinal motility. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 1–12. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01455

95.

Song

Zhao

ZQ.

The involvement of glial cells in the development of morphine tolerance. Neurosci Res 2001; 39: 281–286. doi:10.1016/s0168-0102(00)00226-1

96.

Eidson

Murphy

AZ.

Persistent peripheral inflammation attenuates morphine-induced periaqueductal gray glial cell activation and analgesic tolerance in the male rat. J Pain 2013; 14: 393–404. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.12.010

97.

Beitner-Johnson

Guitart

Nestler

EJ.

Glial fibrillary acidic protein and the mesolimbic dopamine system: regulation by chronic morphine and Lewis–Fischer strain differences in the rat ventral tegmental area. J Neurochem 1993; 61: 1766–1773. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.1993.tb09814.x

98.

Harada

Nakamoto

Tokuyama

The involvement of midbrain astrocyte in the development of morphine tolerance. Life Sci 2013; 93: 573–578. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2013.08.009

99.

Holdridge

Armstrong

Taylor

, et al. Behavioural and morphological evidence for the involvement of glial cell activation in delta opioid receptor function: implications for the development of opioid tolerance. Mol Pain 2007; 3: 7. doi:10.1186/1744-8069-3-7

100.

Cui

Chen

Zhi

Guo

, et al. Activation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase in spinal microglia mediates morphine antinociceptive tolerance. Brain Res 2006; 1069: 235–243. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.066

101.

Mika

Wawrzczak-Bargiela

Osikowicz

, et al. Attenuation of morphine tolerance by minocycline and pentoxifylline in naive and neuropathic mice. Brain Behav Immun 2009; 23: 75–84. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2008.07.005

102.

Raghavendra

Tanga

DeLeo

JA.

Attenuation of morphine tolerance, withdrawal-induced hyperalgesia, and associated spinal inflammatory immune responses by propentofylline in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 2004; 29: 327–34. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300315

103.

Raghavendra

Rutkowski

DeLeo

JA.

The role of spinal neuroimmune activation in morphine tolerance/hyperalgesia in neuropathic and sham-operated rats. J Neurosci 2002; 22: 9980–9989. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-22-09980.2002

104.

Hutchinson

Lewis

Coats

, et al. Reduction of opioid withdrawal and potentiation of acute opioid analgesia by systemic AV411 (ibudilast). Brain Behav Immun 2009; 23: 240–250. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2008.09.012

105.

Hutchinson

Coats

Lewis

, et al. Proinflammatory cytokines oppose opioid-induced acute and chronic analgesia. Brain Behav Immun 2008; 22: 1178–1189. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2008.05.004

106.

Johnston

Milligan

Wieseler-Frank

, et al. A role for proinflammatory cytokines and fractalkine in analgesia, tolerance, and subsequent pain facilitation induced by chronic intrathecal morphine. J Neurosci 2004; 24: 7353–7365. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1850-04.2004

107.

Narita

Suzuki

Narita

, et al. Neuronal protein kinase Cγ-dependent proliferation and hypertrophy of spinal cord astrocytes following repeated in vivo administration of morphine. Eur J Neurosci 2004; 19: 479–484. doi:10.1111/j.0953-816X.2003.03119.x

108.

Wang

Chabot

J-G

, et al. Calcitonin gene-related peptide as a regulator of neuronal CaMKII–CREB, microglial p38–NFκB and astroglial ERK–Stat1/3 cascades mediating the development of tolerance to morphine-induced analgesia. Pain 2010; 151: 194–205. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.07.006

109.

Zhao

Guo

, et al. Spinal MCP-1 contributes to the development of morphine antinociceptive tolerance in rats. Am J Med Sci 2012; 344: 473–479. doi:10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31826a82ce

110.

Eidson

Murphy

AZ.

Blockade of Toll-like receptor 4 attenuates morphine tolerance and facilitates the pain relieving properties of morphine. J Neurosci 2013; 33: 15952–15963. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1609-13.2013

111.

Cui

Liao

Liu

, et al. A novel role of minocycline: attenuating morphine antinociceptive tolerance by inhibition of p38 MAPK in the activated spinal microglia. Brain Behav Immun 2008; 22: 114–123. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2007.07.014

112.

Ellis

Grace

Wieseler

, et al. Morphine amplifies mechanical allodynia via TLR4 in a rat model of spinal cord injury. Brain Behav Immun 2016; 58: 348–356. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2016.08.004

113.

Ellis

Wieseler

Favret

, et al. Systemic administration of propentofylline, ibudilast, and (+)-naltrexone each reverses mechanical allodynia in a novel rat model of central neuropathic pain. J Pain 2014; 15: 407–421. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2013.12.007

114.

Berta

Liu

, et al. Acute morphine activates satellite glial cells and up-regulates IL-1beta in dorsal root ganglia in mice via matrix metalloprotease-9. Mol Pain 2012; 8: 18. doi:10.1186/1744-8069-8-18

115.

Hutchinson

Northcutt

Chao

, et al. Minocycline suppresses morphine-induced respiratory depression, suppresses morphine-induced reward, and enhances systemic morphine-induced analgesia. Brain Behav Immun 2008; 22: 1248–1256. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2008.07.008

116.

Green-Fulgham

Ball

Kwilasz

, et al. Oxycodone, fentanyl, and morphine amplify established neuropathic pain in male rats. Pain 2019; 160: 2634–2640. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001652

117.

Kwok

Hutchinson

Gentgall

, et al. Increased responsiveness of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to in vitro TLR 2, 4 and 7 ligand stimulation in chronic pain patients. PLoS One 2012; 7: e44232. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044232

118.

Somogyi

Sia

Tan

, et al. Ethnicity-dependent influence of innate immune genetic markers on morphine PCA requirements and adverse effects in postoperative pain. Pain 2016; 157: 2458–2466. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000661

119.

Klepstad

Fladvad

Skorpen

, et al. Influence from genetic variability on opioid use for cancer pain: a European genetic association study of 2294 cancer pain patients. Pain 2011; 152: 1139–1145. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.01.040

120.

Haight

Forman

Cordonnier

, et al. Microglial modulation as a target for chronic pain: from the bench to the bedside and back. Anesth Analg 2019; 128: 737–746. doi:10.1213/Ane.0000000000004033

121.

Toljan

Vrooman

Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) – review of therapeutic utilization. Med Sci (Basel) 2018; 6: 82. doi:10.3390/medsci6040082

122.

Chao

Borel

, et al. Preincisional intravenous pentoxifylline attenuating perioperative cytokine response, reducing morphine consumption, and improving recovery of bowel function in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 1465–1471. doi:10.1213/01.ANE.0000132974.32249.C8

123.

Wordliczek

Szczepanik

Banach

, et al. The effect of pentoxifiline on post-injury hyperalgesia in rats and postoperative pain in patients. Life Sci 2000; 66: 1155–1164. doi:10.1016/s0024-3205(00)00419-7

124.

Cooper

Johnson

Pavlicova

, et al. The effects of ibudilast, a glial activation inhibitor, on opioid withdrawal symptoms in opioid-dependent volunteers. Addict Biol 2016; 21: 895–903. doi:10.1111/adb.12261

125.

Metz

Jones

Manubay

, et al. Effects of ibudilast on the subjective, reinforcing, and analgesic effects of oxycodone in recently detoxified adults with opioid dependence. Neuropsychopharmacology 2017; 42: 1825–1832. doi:10.1038/npp.2017.70

126.

Colvin

Bull

Hales

TG.

Perioperative opioid analgesia – when is enough too much? A review of opioid-induced tolerance and hyperalgesia. Lancet 2019; 393: 1558–1568. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30430-1

127.

Jaschke

Pahlig

Pan

, et al. From pharmacology to physiology: endocrine functions of mu-opioid receptor networks. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2021; 32: 306–319. doi:10.1016/j.tem.2021.02.004

New pharmacological perspectives and therapeutic options for opioids: Differences matter

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Atypical opioids

Tramadol

Methadone

Buprenorphine

Tapentadol

Cebranopadol

Biased mu agonism

Oliceridine

Other compounds in development

Other opioid receptors

Other pain targets

Splice variants and multiple isoforms

Heterodimers

Opioimmunomodulation

Opioid interactions with immune cell receptors

Preclinical in vivo opioimmunomodulation

Clinical evidence for potential therapeutic improvement through modified opioimmunomodulation

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author Contribution(s)

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References