throbber
European Journal of Pharmacology 459 (2003) 217 – 219
`
`www.elsevier.com/locate/ejphar
`
`Short communication
`
`Naloxone displacement at opioid receptor sites measured in vivo in the
`human brain
`
`Jan K. Melichar, David J. Nutt*, Andrea L. Malizia
`
`Psychopharmacology Unit, School of Medical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD, UK
`
`Received 12 November 2002; received in revised form 2 December 2002; accepted 6 December 2002
`
`Abstract
`
`We report the use of a sensitive non-tomographic positron detecting system to measure the dose – response curve of naloxone in human
`brain. [11C]Diprenorphine was administered to normal volunteers in tracer amounts and, 30 min later, various bolus doses of naloxone were
`given (1.5 – 160 Ag/kg) intravenously and change in [11C]diprenorphine binding monitored over the next 30 min. We found that this method
`produced results consistent with existing data. It was observed that f13 Ag/kg of naloxone (f1 mg in an 80 kg man) was required to produce
`an estimated 50% receptor occupation. This is consistent with the clinical dose of naloxone used to reverse opiate overdose (0.4 mg – 1.2 mg).
`D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
`
`Keywords: Opioid receptor; Opioid receptor antagonist; Diprenorphine; Naloxone; PET (Positron-Emission Tomography)
`
`1. Introduction
`
`Drugs active at the opioid receptor are important in a
`variety of clinical conditions, as well as in the field of
`addiction. Measures of opioid receptor binding and occu-
`pancy in man in vivo can be obtained using [11C]diprenor-
`phine, a positron-emitting ligand. This has been used with
`Positron-Emission Tomography (PET) to delineate the dis-
`tribution of opioid receptors in the human brain (Jones et al.,
`1988) and in the study of a variety of clinical conditions,
`including epilepsy (Bartenstein et al., 1993) and pain (Jones
`et al., 1999). [11C]Diprenorphine is a weak partial opiate
`agonist which is structurally similar to naloxone (a full opiate
`antagonist) and labels A, n and y brain opioid receptors with
`similar affinities (Jones et al., 1988; Sadzot et al., 1991;
`Seeman, 1993). In conventional PET scans, it takes 20 – 30
`min for [11C]diprenorphine to reach maximal levels in the
`brain, with a stable level of activity or slow decline being
`observed in opioid receptor-rich regions (e.g. frontal, tempo-
`ral and parietal cortices) in the following 30 min.
`The Multiple Organs Coincidences Counter (MOCC) is a
`non-tomographic alternative to PET. It is a whole body gam-
`ma-ray counter modified to detect coincident counts from
`
`* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-117-925-3066; fax: +44-117-927-
`7057.
`E-mail address: david.j.nutt@bristol.ac.uk (D.J. Nutt).
`
`whole regions of the body and is very sensitive, detecting
`radiolabelled tracers given at <1% of the dose used in PET.
`The modification measures coincident counts between pairs
`of highly sensitive sodium iodide detectors and gives a field
`of view of approximately 10 cm. Thus, the left chest is used,
`where necessary, as a reference region, as it is not possible to
`delineate separate areas of the brain with this instrument.
`Reproducible time activity curves of exactly the same tem-
`poral profile to those from conventional PET can be obtained
`from whole body areas exposing patients to 50 – 100 ASv of
`radiation as opposed to 1.5 – 2.5 mSv with conventional PET
`(Malizia et al., 1995).
`Naloxone is a full opiate antagonist and is used clinically
`for the complete or partial reversal of narcotic depression,
`including respiratory depression, induced by opioids includ-
`ing natural and synthetic narcotics. It is also indicated for the
`diagnosis of suspected acute opioid overdosage, where an
`initial dose of 0.4 mg to 1.2 mg is usually administered
`intravenously (occasionally up to 10 mg is given).
`This study aims to validate the use of pulse chase (or
`displacement) experiments in the MOCC to measure nalox-
`one occupation in the human brain and to assess the relation-
`ship between naloxone occupation and the doses required in
`clinical use. Previous work in the MOCC has validated this
`paradigm using the tracer flumazenil to measure GABAA
`receptor sites (Malizia et al., 1995). Villemagne et al. (1994)
`have previously conducted studies on the opioid receptors
`
`0014-2999/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
`doi:10.1016/S0014-2999(02)02872-8
`
`Nalox1228
`Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`218
`
`J.K. Melichar et al. / European Journal of Pharmacology 459 (2003) 217–219
`
`using a similar instrument, though these studies used an
`equilibrium ‘preloading’ paradigm. The advantage of the
`‘displacement’ paradigm used in the present study is that all
`the data can be collected in a single experiment. Calculation
`of occupancy measures may be biased by changes in tissue
`perfusion. Naloxone has been reported in particular condi-
`tions to change brain blood flow (Nagamachi et al., 1995;
`Komjati et al., 2001).
`
`2. Materials and methods
`
`Five healthy volunteers were studied in the MOCC,
`receiving an initial injection of f80 ACi of [11C]diprenor-
`phine. The activity was recorded from the head and the left
`chest for 1 h after injection (the maximum possible, given the
`short half life of [11C]diprenorphine and the low radiation
`doses given), and analysed as previously described (Malizia
`et al., 1995; Melichar et al., 2001). Thirty minutes after the
`initial injection, they received a bolus i.v. injection of
`naloxone and the change in gradient of the washout curve
`before and after administration of naloxone was measured.
`Three volunteers had only one study, one had a further two
`studies and another had a further three studies (in these two
`individuals, they received different doses of naloxone in each
`study and in one of their studies received no naloxone).
`Thus, in total, two control studies and eight naloxone dis-
`placement studies were done. Doses of naloxone given were
`1.5, 4, 5, 10, 12.5, 15, 80 and 160 Ag/kg. For an 80-kg man,
`this corresponds to 0.12, 0.32, 0.4, 0.8, 1, 1.2, 6.4 and 12.8
`mg in total, respectively. The protocol was approved by the
`Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Com-
`mittee (ARSAC) and the local Ethics Committee.
`
`3. Results
`
`The signals from the head were much greater than those
`from the left chest and demonstrated an increased [11C]dipre-
`
`Fig. 1. Typical [11C]diprenorphine MOCC study, illustrating significant
`reduction of signal when naloxone bolus given.
`
`Fig. 2. Log dose – response curve: naloxone displacement of [11C]diprenor-
`phine in the MOCC in eight healthy volunteers—gradient changes.
`
`norphine washout rate after injection of naloxone (see
`Fig. 1), which continued until the end of the study (a further
`30 min). This change in washout rate was measured and the
`results are shown in Fig. 2 in the traditional log dose –
`response format. From this, it is estimated that 50% of opioid
`receptors in the brain are occupied by naloxone at a dose of
`approximately 13 Ag/kg.
`
`4. Discussion
`
`These results demonstrate that this method is useful for
`calculating opioid receptor occupation in man in vivo. We
`have shown that the dose needed to occupy 50% of available
`receptors in the adult human brain is approximately 13 Ag/
`kg, which, in an 80-kg man, corresponds to 1.04 mg. This
`closely mirrors the doses given in clinical practice for the
`treatment of opioid overdose (usually 0.4 to 1.2 mg, i.e. one
`to three ampoules at 0.4 mg/ampoule). These data are
`consistent with previous observations by Villemagne et al.
`(1994) who used a preloading paradigm. We can therefore
`conclude that a displacement paradigm seems effective in
`healthy volunteers. It can also be inferred that to block the
`effects of an overdose of opioid agonists with naloxone
`requires around 50% blockade of available opioid receptors,
`given the results from this study and everyday clinical
`practice with naloxone.
`However, this study does not tell us what occurs in the
`brains of opiate-dependent individuals—further experiments
`will be needed before extrapolating these results to this
`group. This is because these individuals may well have
`changes in receptor numbers due to their chronic misuse of
`opiates and might exhibit large changes in cerebral blood
`flow when exposed to naloxone (Zamani et al., 2000).
`In summary, this is a valid technique for deriving an index
`of opioid receptor site occupation using very low doses of
`radiation which allows repeated measurements to be made.
`We have shown that this method estimates 50% receptor
`occupation by f13 mg/kg of naloxone in man in vivo,
`which is in line with both pre-clinical work and clinical
`experience.
`
`Nalox1228
`Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`J.K. Melichar et al. / European Journal of Pharmacology 459 (2003) 217–219
`
`219
`
`Acknowledgements
`
`We are grateful for the help and support of the staff at the
`MRC Cyclotron Centre in London, especially Dr. Roger
`Gunn, as well as Dr. Judy Myles, Dr. Anne Lingford-Hughes
`and Dr. Mark Daglish in Bristol and to the Wellcome Trust
`and the Medical Research Council for the financial support.
`
`References
`
`Bartenstein, P.A., Duncan, J.S., Prevett, M.C., Cunningham, V.J., Fish,
`D.R., Jones, A.K., Luthra, S.K., Sawle, G.V., Brooks, D.J., 1993. Inves-
`tigation of the opioid system in absence seizures with positron emission
`tomography. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 56, 1295 – 1302.
`Jones, A.K., Luthra, S.K., Maziere, B., Pike, V.W., Loc’h, C., Crouzel, C.,
`Syrota, A., Jones, T., 1988. Regional cerebral opioid receptor studies
`with [11C]diprenorphine in normal volunteers. J. Neurosci. Methods 23,
`121 – 129.
`Jones, A.K., Kitchen, N.D., Watabe, H., Cunningham, V.J., Jones, T.,
`Luthra, S.K., Thomas, D.G., 1999. Measurement of changes in opioid
`receptor binding in vivo during trigeminal neuralgic pain using [11C]di-
`prenorphine and positron emission tomography. J. Cereb. Blood Flow
`Metab. 19, 803 – 808.
`Komjati, K., Greenberg, J.H., Reivich, M., Sandor, P., 2001. Interactions
`between the endothelium-derived relaxing factor/nitric oxide system
`and the endogenous opiate system in the modulation of cerebral and
`
`spinal vascular CO2 responsiveness. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 21,
`937 – 944.
`Malizia, A., Forse, G., Haida, A., Gunn, R., Melichar, J., Poole, K., Bate-
`man, D., Fahy, D., Schorr, L., Brown, D., Rhodes, C., Nutt, D., Jones, T.,
`1995. A new human (psycho)pharmacology tool: the multiple organs
`coincidences counter (MOCC). J. Psychopharmacol. 9, 294 – 306.
`Melichar, J.K., Haida, A., Rhodes, C., Reynolds, A.H., Nutt, D.J., Malizia,
`A.L., 2001. Venlafaxine occupation at the noradrenaline reuptake site: in-
`vivo determination in healthy volunteers. J. Psychopharmacol. 15, 9 – 12.
`Nagamachi, K., Shitara, K., Yamashita, Y., Morita, H., Nishida, Y., Maeta,
`H., Tanaka, S., Hosomi, H., 1995. Role of endogenous opioids and cen-
`tral opioid receptors in cerebral cortical blood flow autoregulation. Jpn. J.
`Physiol. 45, 137 – 149.
`Sadzot, B., Price, J.C., Mayberg, H.S., Douglass, K.H., Dannals, R.F.,
`Lever, J.R., Ravert, H.T., Wilson, A.A., Wagner Jr., H.N., Feldman,
`M.A., 1991. Quantification of human opiate receptor concentration
`and affinity using high and low specific activity [11C]diprenorphine
`and positron emission tomography. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 11,
`204 – 219.
`Seeman, P., 1993. Receptor tables. Drug Dissociation Constants for Neuro-
`receptors and Transporters, vol. 2. SZ Research, Toronto.
`Villemagne, V.L., Frost, J.J., Dannals, R.F., Lever, J.R., Tanada, S., Na-
`tarajan, T.K., Wilson, A.A., Ravert, H.T., Wagner Jr., H.N., 1994. Com-
`parison of [11C]diprenorphine and [11C]carfentanil in vivo binding to
`opiate receptors in man using a dual detector system. Eur. J. Pharmacol.
`257, 195 – 197.
`Zamani, R., Semnanian, S., Fathollahi, Y., Hajizadeh, S., 2000. Systemic
`naloxone enhances cerebral blood flow in anesthetized morphine-de-
`pendent rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 408, 299 – 304.
`
`Nalox1228
`Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`Page 3 of 3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket