Fabre V, Hamon M
INSERM U288, Neuropsychopharmacologie, CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, 91, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75634 Paris cedex 13.
Encephale. 2003 May-Jun;29(3 Pt 1):259-65.
A first improvement in the treatment of depression was achieved in 1970-80 with the development of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) because these drugs, which are as potent antidepressants as the tricyclics, are devoid of most of the secondary effects of the latter drugs (orthostatic hypotension, weight gain, dry mouth, etc, mainly caused by their capacity to block alpha1-adrenergic, H1 histaminergic and muscarinic receptors). However, SSRI did not solve all the problems inherent to the treatment of depression because (i) approximately 30% of depressed patients do not respond to these drugs, and (ii) their antidepressant effect becomes really significant only after 3-4 weeks of treatment, like that observed with tricyclics. A further improvement in the development of antidepressant drugs has recently been made with the synthesis of the S enantiomer of citalopram, called Escitalopram. Indeed, this active enantiomer is the most selective among all SSRI available to date, including citalopram. In addition, the potency of Escitalopram to inhibit serotonin reuptake (K(i)=2,1 nM) and to induce antidepressant-like effects in relevant animal paradigms (forced swimming test; chronic mild stress; stress-induced ultrasonic vocalization) is markedly increased as compared with citalopram and other SSRI. In particular, in the forced swimming test, which is especially relevant for assessing the potential antidepressant properties of drugs, Escitalopram was shown to be at least 15 fold more potent than any other SSRI to delay helplessness-induced immobility of rats. Even more interestingly, under chronic treatment conditions, Escitalopram was found to be significantly more rapid than any other antidepressant (tricyclics such as imipramine, SSRI such as fluoxetine) to restore sucrose intake in rats subjected to chronic mild stress, suggesting a reduced delay in its antidepressant action. This was indeed fully confirmed in humans as only 1-2 weeks of treatment with Escitalopram was enough to significantly reduce MADRS score in depressed subjects, compared to 3-4 weeks with any other antidepressant drug. These unique properties led to further investigations of the pharmacological profile of Escitalopram. It thus appeared that, at equipotent doses, the S enantiomer was significantly more efficient than citalopram (racemate) to increase the extracellular levels of serotonin within the frontal cortex of freely moving rats bearing a locally implanted microdialysis probe. Further experiments showed that R-citalopram counteracted the capacity of Escitalopram to enhance extracellular 5-HT levels, thereby explaining why the racemate had only a limited action in this regard. In addition, behavioural studies (stress-induced ultrasonic vocalization test) also showed that R-citalopram exerts effects opposite to those (antidepressant--and anxiolytic--like effects) of Escitalopram. The reason for these differences between the two enantiomers might concern the secondary molecular targets at which citalopram acts, but with affinities at least two orders of magnitude less than for the serotonin transporter. Indeed, R-citalopram has a 7-10-fold higher affinity for H1 histaminergic (K(i)=180 nM) and alpha1-adrenergic (K(i)=560 nM) receptors than Escitalopram (respective K(is) > or = 2 000 nM), and this difference might contribute not only to the better selectivity of the latter enantiomer for its therapeutically relevant target (i.e. the serotonin transporter) but also to its improved capacity to enhance central 5-HT neurotransmission. On the other hand, the global affinity of Escitalopram (K(i)=200-430 nM) for both subtypes of sigma receptors (sigma1 and sigma2) is higher than that of R-citalopram (and of the racemate citalopram; K(i)=200-1 500 nM), and this might also strengthen the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects of the S enantiomer because behavioural studies showed that selective sigma1 and sigma2 agonists are endowed with both antidepressant--and anxiolytic-like properties in relevant animal models. However, to date, the exact nature (agonist or antagonist) of the action of Escitalopram at sigma receptors is not known yet, and this question has to be addressed in future investigations. Altogether, these data open novel perspectives for both a better treatment of depressive disorders and a better knowledge of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying antidepressant therapy, and, possibly, depression itself.
20世纪70至80年代,随着选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRI)的研发,抑郁症治疗取得了首次进展。因为这些药物作为与三环类药物一样有效的抗抑郁药,没有后者的大多数副作用(体位性低血压、体重增加、口干等,主要是由于它们阻断α1-肾上腺素能、H1组胺能和毒蕈碱受体的能力所致)。然而,SSRI并未解决抑郁症治疗中固有的所有问题,因为(i)约30%的抑郁症患者对这些药物无反应,以及(ii)其抗抑郁作用只有在治疗3至4周后才会真正显著,与三环类药物的情况类似。最近,随着西酞普兰的S对映体(艾司西酞普兰)的合成,抗抑郁药物的研发又有了进一步进展。事实上,这种活性对映体是迄今为止所有可用的SSRI中选择性最高的,包括西酞普兰。此外,与西酞普兰和其他SSRI相比,艾司西酞普兰抑制5-羟色胺再摄取(K(i)=2.1 nM)以及在相关动物模型(强迫游泳试验;慢性轻度应激;应激诱导的超声波发声)中诱导类抗抑郁作用的效力显著增强。特别是在对评估药物潜在抗抑郁特性尤为重要的强迫游泳试验中,艾司西酞普兰延缓大鼠无助诱导的不动行为的效力比任何其他SSRI至少强15倍。更有趣的是,在慢性治疗条件下,发现艾司西酞普兰比任何其他抗抑郁药(如三环类药物丙咪嗪、SSRI如氟西汀)能更快地恢复遭受慢性轻度应激大鼠的蔗糖摄取,这表明其抗抑郁作用的延迟时间缩短。这在人体中也得到了充分证实,与使用任何其他抗抑郁药物需要3至4周相比,使用艾司西酞普兰治疗仅1至2周就足以显著降低抑郁症患者的MADRS评分。这些独特的特性促使人们进一步研究艾司西酞普兰的药理学特征。结果发现,在等效剂量下,S对映体比西酞普兰(消旋体)能更有效地提高自由活动且局部植入微透析探针的大鼠额叶皮质细胞外5-羟色胺水平。进一步的实验表明,R-西酞普兰抵消了艾司西酞普兰提高细胞外5-羟色胺水平的能力,从而解释了为什么消旋体在这方面作用有限。此外,行为学研究(应激诱导的超声波发声试验)也表明,R-西酞普兰产生的效应与艾司西酞普兰的效应(类抗抑郁和类抗焦虑效应)相反。这两种对映体之间存在这些差异的原因可能与西酞普兰作用的次要分子靶点有关,但其亲和力比对5-羟色胺转运体的亲和力至少低两个数量级。事实上,R-西酞普兰对H1组胺能(K(i)=180 nM)和α1-肾上腺素能(K(i)=560 nM)受体的亲和力比艾司西酞普兰(各自的K(i)≥2000 nM)高7至10倍,这种差异可能不仅有助于后者对映体对其治疗相关靶点(即5-羟色胺转运体)具有更好的选择性,还有助于其增强中枢5-羟色胺神经传递的能力。另一方面,艾司西酞普兰(K(i)=200 - 430 nM)对σ受体的两种亚型(σ1和σ2)的总体亲和力高于R-西酞普兰(以及消旋体西酞普兰;K(i)=200 - 1500 nM),这也可能增强S对映体的抗抑郁和抗焦虑作用,因为行为学研究表明,选择性σ1和σ2激动剂在相关动物模型中具有类抗抑郁和类抗焦虑特性。然而,迄今为止,艾司西酞普兰在σ受体上作用的确切性质(激动剂或拮抗剂)尚不清楚,这个问题有待未来的研究解决。总之,这些数据为更好地治疗抑郁症以及更好地了解抗抑郁治疗背后的神经生物学机制,甚至可能是抑郁症本身,开辟了新的前景。