JPET

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lichtman, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, B. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lichtman, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, B. R.

Inhalation exposure to volatilized opioids produces antinociception in mice

AH Lichtman, Y Meng and BR Martin

Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Virginia/Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.

The goal of this study was to determine whether opioids of varying potencies are pharmacologically active via the inhalation route of administration in mice. The opioids evaluated included heroin, morphine, codeine, fentanyl and meperidine; each of these drugs has the potential for abuse in humans. Inhalation exposure to each of these compounds produced antinociception in a dose-dependent manner as assessed in the tall-flick test. No pyrolysis products were detected after heating either morphine or codeine at 250 degrees C for 5 min. Although 6-acetylmorphine was found after heating heroin, it accounted for less than 5% of the recovered sample. Heroin was somewhat less potent by inhalation administration than i.v. injection, with ED50 values of 1.6 and 0.69 mumol/kg, respectively. In contrast, the relative potency of morphine was substantially greater when inhaled than when injected, with respective ED50 values of 0.77 and 3.9 mumol/kg. Whereas the body to brain ratios of [3H]morphine were approximately 8 and 20 for inhalation exposure and i.v. injection, respectively, the ratio for heroin was approximately 5 regardless of administration route. This pattern of results suggests that the increase in morphine potency upon inhalation may have resulted from an increased accessibility to the brain compared with i.v. injection. Finally, naloxone reversed the antinociceptive effects of volatilized heroin, but neither the kappa selective antagonist nor-binaltorphimine nor the delta selective antagonist naltrindole blocked this antinociception, which suggests the involvement of mu opioid receptors. These findings taken together suggest the potential for the abuse of a variety of opioids, in addition to heroin, through the inhalation route of administration by humans.

Volume 279, Issue 1, pp. 69-76, 10/01/1996
Copyright © 1996 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1996 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.