Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU-Lille, Lille Neuroscience & Cognition, UMR-S1172, Degenerative and Vascular Cognitive Disorders, 59000, Lille, France.
Service universitaire d'addictologie de Lyon (SUAL), centre hospitalier Le Vinatier, 69500 Lyon, France; Service Hospitalo-Universitaire de Pharmacotoxicologie de Lyon, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Therapie. 2021 Mar-Apr;76(2):127-136. doi: 10.1016/j.therap.2020.12.009. Epub 2020 Dec 5.
In the field of substance use disorders (SUDs), medications are frequently labeled according to their main symptomatic effect (e.g., "anticraving drugs") or according to imprecise and sometimes old concepts related to treatment strategies (e.g., "replacement therapies", "antabuse drugs", or "substitution treatments"). By contrast, the neuroscience-based nomenclature (NbN) offers a clearer and more consistent rationale, according to which the main element of classification is based on the pharmacological mode of action of the medication. This review aims to display the different approved treatments used in SUDs, and to discuss the pros and cons of using this new conceptual framework in the field of addiction. According to the NbN classification, medications approved in the different SUDs can be classified in the different following categories: 1) nicotinic drugs; 2) GABAergic drugs; 3) opioid drugs; and 4) others. More specifically, medications can be distinguished between whether they mimic the same pharmacological action of the "substance" whose use should be stopped or reduced, or whether they target other more general pharmacological systems, that are supposed to be common to all SUDs, as they reflect the "universal" addiction process. The NbN offers obvious advantages, compared with previous classifications. In particular, it allows to no longer mix drugs with very different pharmacological targets under the same label. The main limitation of the NbN, when applied to psychopharmacology in general, and to SUDs medications in particular, is that drugs frequently have a "dirty" action, with multiple pharmacological targets. In this respect, it may be hard to classify drugs according to the NbN classification, without making the individual profile of each medicine more complex.
在物质使用障碍(SUD)领域,药物通常根据其主要症状效应进行标记(例如,“抗渴求药物”),或者根据与治疗策略相关的不精确且有时陈旧的概念进行标记(例如,“替代疗法”、“戒酒药物”或“替代治疗”)。相比之下,基于神经科学的命名法(NbN)提供了更清晰和更一致的原理,根据该原理,分类的主要元素基于药物的药理学作用模式。本综述旨在展示 SUD 中使用的不同批准治疗方法,并讨论在成瘾领域使用这种新概念框架的优缺点。根据 NbN 分类,不同 SUD 中批准的药物可分为以下几类:1)尼古丁类药物;2)GABA 能药物;3)阿片类药物;和 4)其他。更具体地说,可以根据药物是否模拟应停止或减少使用的“物质”的相同药理学作用,或者它们是否针对其他更一般的药理学系统进行区分,这些系统被认为是所有 SUD 共有的,因为它们反映了“普遍”的成瘾过程。与以前的分类相比,NbN 具有明显的优势。特别是,它允许不再将具有非常不同药理学靶点的药物混合在同一标签下。当将 NbN 应用于一般精神药理学,特别是 SUD 药物时,主要限制是药物通常具有“混杂”作用,具有多个药理学靶点。在这方面,根据 NbN 分类对药物进行分类可能很困难,而不会使每种药物的个体特征更加复杂。