McCormack K
Drug Research Group, McCormack Ltd., Bedfordshire, England.
Drugs. 1994;47 Suppl 5:28-45; discussion 46-7. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199400475-00006.
The traditional classification of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as exclusively 'peripherally acting' agents is no longer valid. For many of these agents there is a growing body of evidence in favour of an additional central mechanism for their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. This view is further supported by the recent discovery that a substantial component of the hyperalgesia and allodynia that characterise postinjury hypersensitivity occurs in the CNS, notably the spinal dorsal horn. An important corollary is that inhibition of central nociceptive processing may represent an important analgesic mode of action for those NSAIDs that are effective in the management of pain after tissue injury. Historically, attempts to group this heterogeneous class of compounds into a single entity are largely derived from the observation that the majority of clinically useful NSAIDs are weak organic acids (pKa 3 to 5), bind extensively to plasma albumin (= 99%), and inhibit (to varying degrees) prostaglandin synthesis. However, the significance of these various unifying features is becoming increasingly obscure. While inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis apparently remains an important analgesic mode of action for NSAIDs both in the periphery and the CNS, other mechanisms should be considered. Some NSAIDs, in addition to their effects on prostaglandin synthesis, also affect the synthesis and activity of other neuroactive substances believed to have key roles in processing nociceptive input within the dorsal horn. It has been argued that these other actions, in conjunction with inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis, may synergistically augment the effects of NSAIDs on spinal nociceptive processing. Despite much effort, it remains a formidable task to assess the significance of these differential mechanisms upon clinical pain states. In the meantime, however, it may be possible, on the basis of in vivo studies, to evaluate the impact of putative spinal analgesic mechanisms that are unrelated to inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis. This approach has recently been extended to include the identification of pharmacokinetic and clinical correlates of these derived in vivo parameters, and in this way attempt to demonstrate clinical relevance.
将非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)单纯归类为“外周作用”药物的传统分类已不再成立。对于许多此类药物,越来越多的证据表明其抗炎和镇痛作用还存在额外的中枢机制。近期发现,损伤后超敏反应所特有的痛觉过敏和异常性疼痛的很大一部分发生在中枢神经系统,尤其是脊髓背角,这进一步支持了这一观点。一个重要的推论是,对于那些在组织损伤后疼痛管理中有效的NSAIDs,抑制中枢伤害性信息处理可能是一种重要的镇痛作用方式。从历史上看,将这类异质性化合物归为单一类别,很大程度上源于以下观察结果:大多数临床上有用的NSAIDs是弱有机酸(pKa为3至5),与血浆白蛋白广泛结合(= 99%),并(不同程度地)抑制前列腺素合成。然而,这些各种统一特征的意义正变得越来越模糊。虽然抑制前列腺素合成显然仍是NSAIDs在外周和中枢的重要镇痛作用方式,但也应考虑其他机制。一些NSAIDs除了对前列腺素合成有影响外,还会影响其他神经活性物质的合成和活性,这些物质被认为在背角伤害性信息输入处理中起关键作用。有人认为,这些其他作用与抑制前列腺素合成一起,可能协同增强NSAIDs对脊髓伤害性信息处理的作用。尽管付出了很多努力,但评估这些不同机制对临床疼痛状态的意义仍然是一项艰巨的任务。然而,与此同时,基于体内研究,有可能评估与抑制前列腺素合成无关的假定脊髓镇痛机制的影响。这种方法最近已扩展到包括确定这些体内参数的药代动力学和临床相关性,并以此方式试图证明其临床相关性。