The bivalent ligand, MMG22, reduces neuropathic pain after nerve injury without the side effects of traditional opioids.

ABSTRACT: Functional interactions between the mu opioid receptor (MOR) and the metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) in pain and analgesia have been well established. MMG22 is a bivalent ligand containing MOR agonist (oxymorphamine) and mGluR5 antagonist (MPEP) pharmacophores tethered by a 22-atom linker. MMG22 has been shown to produce potent analgesia in several models of chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain (NP). This study assessed the efficacy of systemic administration of MMG22 at reducing pain behavior in the spared nerve injury (SNI) model of NP in mice, as well as its side-effect profile and abuse potential. MMG22 reduced mechanical hyperalgesia and spontaneous ongoing pain after SNI, with greater potency early (10 days) as compared to late (30 days) after injury. Systemic administration of MMG22 did not induce place preference in naive animals, suggesting absence of abuse liability when compared to traditional opioids. MMG22 also lacked the central locomotor, respiratory, and anxiolytic side effects of its monomeric pharmacophores. Evaluation of mRNA expression showed the transcripts for both receptors were colocalized in cells in the dorsal horn of the lumbar spinal cord and dorsal root ganglia. Thus, MMG22 reduces hyperalgesia after injury in the SNI model of NP without the typical centrally mediated side effects associated with traditional opioids.

Targeting MOR-mGluR5 heteromers reduces bone cancer pain by activating MOR and inhibiting mGluR5.

Pain is among the most common symptoms in cancer and approximately 90% of patients experience end-stage cancer pain. The management of cancer pain is challenging due to the significant side effects associated with opioids, and novel therapeutic approaches are needed. MMG22 is a bivalent ligand containing MOR agonist and mGluR5 antagonist pharmacophores joined by a 22-atom spacer. MMG22 exhibited extraordinary analgesia following intrathecal administration in a mouse model of bone cancer pain. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of systemic administration of MMG22 in reducing cancer pain and evaluated whether MMG22 displays side effects associated with opioids. Fibrosarcoma cells were injected into and around the calcaneus bone in C3H mice. Mechanical hyperalgesia was defined as an increase in the paw withdrawal frequencies (PWFs) evoked by application of a von Frey monofilament (3.9 mN bending force) applied to the plantar surface of the hind paw Subcutaneous (s.c.), intramuscular (i.m.), and oral (p.o.) administration of MMG22 produced robust dose-dependent antihyperalgesia, whose ED50 was orders of magnitude lower than morphine. Moreover, the ED50 for MMG22 decreased with disease progression. Importantly, s.c. administration of MMG22 did not produce acute (24 h) or long-term (9 days) tolerance, was not rewarding (conditioned place preference test), and did not produce naloxone-induced precipitated withdrawal or alter motor function. A possible mechanism of action of MMG22 is discussed in terms of inhibition of spinal NMDAR via antagonism of its co-receptor, mGluR5, and concomitant activation of neuronal MOR. We suggest that MMG22 may be a powerful alternative to traditional opioids for managing cancer pain. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'New Vistas in Opioid Pharmacology'.

Initial accuracy assessment of the modified S-LANSS for the detection of neuropathic orofacial pain conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a questionnaire modified for the identification of intraoral pain with neuropathic characteristics in a clinical orofacial pain sample population. METHOD AND MATERIALS: 136 participants with at least one of four orofacial pain diagnoses (temporomandibular disorders [TMD, n = 41], acute dental pain [ADP, n = 41], trigeminal neuralgia [TN, n = 19], persistent dentoalveolar pain disorder [PDAP, n = 14]) and a group of pain-free controls (n = 21) completed the modified S-LANSS, a previously adapted version of the original questionnaire devised to detected patients suffering from intraoral pain with neuropathic characteristics. Psychometric properties (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated in two analyses with two different thresholds: (1) Detection of pain with neuropathic characteristics: PDAP + TN were considered positive, and TMD + ADP + controls were considered negative per gold standard (expert opinion). (2) Detection of PDAP: PDAP was considered positive and TMD + ADP were considered negative per gold standard. For both analyses, target values for adequate sensitivity and specificity were defined as ≥ 80%. RESULTS: For detection of orofacial pain with neuropathic characteristics (PDAP + TN), the modified S-LANSS presented with the most optimistic threshold sensitivity of 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-69), specificity of 70% (95% CI, 60-79), PPV of 35% (95% CI, 22-51), and NPV of 82% (95% CI, 72-89). For detection of PDAP only, with the most optimistic threshold sensitivity was 64% (95% CI, 35-87), specificity 63% (95% CI, 52-74), PPV 23% (95% CI, 11-39) and NPV 91% (95% CI, 81-97). CONCLUSION: Based on a priori defined criteria, the modified S-LANSS did not show adequate accuracy to detect intraoral pain with neuropathic characteristics in a clinical orofacial pain sample.

Examining the Sensitivity and Specificity of 2 Screening Instruments: Odontogenic or Temporomandibular Disorder Pain?

INTRODUCTION: Two groups of patients with orofacial pains that are clinically important to distinguish from each other are patients with odontogenic pain and temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of 2 screening instruments in distinguishing between patients with these types of pain. METHODS: A convenience sample of patients seeking care at an endodontic clinic and an orofacial pain clinic were recruited. The 14-item dental pain questionnaire (DePaQ) was used to screen for odontogenic pain and the 6-item TMD screener was used to screen for TMD pain. Sensitivity and specificity calculations with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed for both instruments, and thresholds/acceptability/performance was assessed using published guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with odontogenic pain and 37 patients with TMD pain were included in this study. The sensitivity of the DePaQ was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95), and specificity was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.03-0.25). The sensitivity of the TMD screener was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-0.98), and specificity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.41-0.75). The point estimates, a single value used to estimate the population parameter, for both the DePaQ and TMD screener were "acceptable" in identifying patients who had the pain condition in question (ie, sensitivity), whereas the point estimate for appropriately identifying patients who did not have the pain condition when they did not have it (ie, specificity) was "nonacceptable" for both. CONCLUSIONS: The DePaQ and the TMD screener lack diagnostic accuracy for differentiating TMD from odontogenic tooth pain without adjunctive (clinical) investigation(s) or examination. However, the TMD screener has high sensitivity for identifying true positives (ie, TMD pain) and would therefore be useful as a screening instrument when one can definitively exclude odontogenic etiology for pain on clinical and radiographic grounds, for instance in endodontic practices. In this study, the negative predictive value was also high in the TMD screener, and, therefore, we can trust a negative result (ie, when the TMD screener is negative, we can be fairly certain the pain diagnosis is not TMD and rule out TMD).