ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) of the GABAB receptor constitute a new class of GABAB-receptor ligands. GABAB PAMs reproduce several pharmacological effects of the orthosteric GABAB receptor agonist, baclofen, although displaying a better safety profile. AIMS: This paper reviews the reducing or, frequently, even suppressing effects of all GABAB PAMs tested to date on multiple alcohol-related behaviours in laboratory rodents exposed to validated experimental models of human alcohol use disorder. RESULTS: Acute or repeated treatment with CGP7930, GS39783, BHF177, rac-BHFF, ADX71441, CMPPE, COR659, ASP8062, KK-92A, and ORM-27669 reduced excessive alcohol drinking, relapse- and binge-like drinking, operant alcohol self-administration, reinstatement of alcohol seeking, and alcohol-induced conditioned place preference in rats and mice. CONCLUSIONS: These effects closely mirrored those of baclofen; notably, they were associated to remarkably lower levels of tolerance and toxicity. The recent transition of ASP8062 to clinical testing will soon prove whether these highly consistent preclinical data translate to AUD patients.
Subject(s)
Alcoholism , Animals , Mice , Rats , Alcohol Drinking/drug therapy , Alcoholism/drug therapy , Baclofen/pharmacology , Baclofen/therapeutic use , GABA-B Receptor Agonists/pharmacology , GABA-B Receptor Agonists/therapeutic use , Receptors, GABA-BABSTRACT
A febre é uma resposta não específica a vários tipos de insultos, de origem infecciosa ou não, e sua importância em doenças continua a ser um enigma. Nosso objetivo foi resumir a evidência atual para o uso de antipiréticos em pacientes graves. Foram realizadas revisão sistemática e meta-análise de publicações entre 1966 e 2013. As bases de dados MEDLINE e CENTRAL foram pesquisadas para estudos sobre antipirese em pacientes graves. A meta-análise restringiu-se a ensaios clínicos randomizados em humanos adultos; pacientes graves; tratamento com antipiréticos em um braço contra placebo ou não tratamento no outro; e dados sobre mortalidade. Os desfechos avaliados foram: mortalidade geral na unidade de terapia intensiva, mudança de temperatura e tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva e no hospital. Três ensaios clínicos randomizados com 320 participantes foram incluídos. Os pacientes tratados com antipiréticos tiveram mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva semelhante aos controles (razão de risco de 0,91, com intervalo de confiança de 95% de 0,65-1,28). A única diferença observada foi uma diminuição na temperatura após 24 horas em pacientes tratados com antipiréticos (-1,70±0,40 x - 0,56±0,25ºC; p=0,014). Não houve diferença entre tratar ou não a febre em pacientes graves.
Fever is a nonspecific response to various types of infectious or non-infectious insult and its significance in disease remains an enigma. Our aim was to summarize the current evidence for the use of antipyretic therapy in critically ill patients. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of publications from 1966 to 2013. The MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies on antipyresis in critically ill patients. The meta-analysis was limited to: randomized controlled trials; adult human critically ill patients; treatment with antipyretics in one arm versus placebo or non-treatment in another arm; and report of mortality data. The outcomes assessed were overall intensive care unit mortality, changes in temperature, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Three randomized controlled trials, covering 320 participants, were included. Patients treated with antipyretic agents showed similar intensive care unit mortality (risk ratio 0.91, with 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.28) when compared with controls. The only difference observed was a greater decrease in temperature after 24 hours in patients treated with antipyretics (-1.70±0.40 versus - 0.56±0.25ºC; p=0.014). There is no difference in treating or not the fever in critically ill patients.