Free
Correspondence  |   May 2007
Oxycodone’s Mechanism of Action and Potency Differences after Spinal and Systemic Routes of Administration
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Maree T. Smith, Ph.D.
    *
  • *School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   May 2007
Oxycodone’s Mechanism of Action and Potency Differences after Spinal and Systemic Routes of Administration
Anesthesiology 5 2007, Vol.106, 1063-1064. doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000265176.75372.ed
Anesthesiology 5 2007, Vol.106, 1063-1064. doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000265176.75372.ed
To the Editor:—
We read with interest the article by Lemberg et al.  1 titled “Antinociception by Spinal and Systemic Oxycodone: Why Does the Route Make a Difference?” that was published in the October 2006 issue of Anesthesiology. In the following paragraphs, we highlight significant limitations confounding their conclusions.
Although there has been a large increase in the prescribing of the opioid analgesic oxycodone for clinical pain management in the past decade, the differences in the pharmacology of oxycodone relative to the prototypic μ-opioid agonist morphine are less well known. For example, although an analgesic potency ratio for oxycodone to morphine of 1.5 was reported in patients after intravenous administration for postoperative pain management,2 the affinity of oxycodone for the μ-opioid receptor is much lower (approximately 40-fold) than that of morphine in radioligand binding studies performed with rat brain homogenate, as well as with membranes prepared from cultured CHO cells expressing the human μ-opioid receptor (hMOR1).3,4 In addition, the potency of oxycodone compared with morphine is considerably lower after spinal administration in rats (approximately 14-fold) and humans (approximately 8-fold).5,6 We have also shown that after intracerebroventricular administration in rats, the potency of oxycodone is approximately 44% that of morphine7 and that intracerebroventricular oxycodone antinociception is blocked by the κ-selective opioid antagonist nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI).8 
The recent article by Lemberg et al.  1 reported that in addition to producing only weak naloxone-reversible antinociception after intrathecal administration to Sprague-Dawley rats, G-protein activation induced by oxycodone in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord was lower compared with that of morphine and oxycodone’s O-demethylated metabolite, oxymorphone. In addition, the authors present data purporting to show that oxycodone’s antinociceptive effects after subcutaneous administration were blocked by naloxone, but not by nor-BNI. They conclude that the reduced potency of oxycodone after intrathecal administration in rats is related to its low efficacy and potency for G protein–mediated μ-opioid receptor activation, and that an active metabolite such as oxymorphone that is not formed in the central nervous system may account for the differences in oxycodone’s antinociceptive effects after subcutaneous and intrathecal administration.
However, there are a number of problems with the authors’ interpretation of their data, and their results1 do not justify the conclusions drawn. In previous human studies, circulating oxymorphone concentrations remained very low (< 1.2 ng/ml) after systemic and oral modes of administration.9–12 Recent studies of oxycodone’s pharmacokinetics and metabolism after oral administration in humans found that oxycodone was metabolized predominantly to noroxycodone, with area under the curve ratios for oxycodone:noroxycodone and oxymorphone:oxycodone of 1.19 and 0.04, respectively.4 Similarly, we have shown that circulating oxymorphone levels also remain very low (< 2.1 ng/ml) in rats after subcutaneous administration of oxycodone.13 In addition, studies in human CYP2D6-extensive metabolizers showed that oxycodone’s pharmacodynamic effects were not significantly altered after blockade of CYP2D6-mediated O-demethylation of oxycodone to oxymorphone by quidinine,12 further discounting the possible contribution of metabolically derived oxymorphone to the analgesic effects of systemically administered oxycodone.
Furthermore, there are serious methodologic problems with the study involving nor-BNI in the article by Lemberg et al.  1 that confound their data interpretation. In previously published dose–response studies, suppression of the antinociceptive effects of the κ-selective opioid agonist, U69,593, by nor-BNI was shown to be maximal after intracerebroventricular administration in rodents, when nor-BNI was administered 24 h before U69,593.14 Likewise, in other studies, subcutaneous nor-BNI at 5 and 20 mg/kg blocked the antinociceptive effects of the κ-selective opioid agonist U-50,488H in rodents only when nor-BNI was administered at least 2 h before U-50,488H.15 Furthermore, in the same study, Endoh et al.  15 showed that at 30 min after subcutaneous administration, nor-BNI behaves as a μ-antagonist rather than a κ-antagonist. Because nor-BNI was administered 30 min before oxycodone in the study by Lemberg et al.  1 and a positive control such as U69,593 or U-50,488H was not included in their study design, the authors’ conclusion that nor-BNI did not block the antinociceptive effects of oxycodone is not justified. Moreover, the assertion by Lemberg et al.  that oxycodone’s antinociceptive effects are mediated by μ- rather than κ-opioid receptors is not correct.
Although the reason for oxycodone’s low potency after spinal routes of administration remains unclear, it is highly unlikely that oxymorphone or some other active metabolite can account for this, as the authors speculate. Rather, it is our view that the findings by Lemberg et al.  1 further demonstrate that the antinociceptive effects of oxycodone and morphine are mediated by distinctly different mechanisms and that oxycodone is not a μ-opioid agonist.
*School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
References
Lemberg KK, Kontinen VK, Siislonen AO, Viljakka KM, Kauhaluoma JT, Korpi ER, Kalso EA: Antinociception by spinal and systemic oxycodone: Why does the route make a difference? In vitro  and in vivo  studies in rats. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:801–12Lemberg, KK Kontinen, VK Siislonen, AO Viljakka, KM Kauhaluoma, JT Korpi, ER Kalso, EA
Kalso E, Poyhia R, Onnela P, Linko K, Tigerstedt I, Tammistro T: Intravenous morphine and oxycodone for pain after abdominal surgery. Acta Anesthesiol Scand 1991; 35:642–6Kalso, E Poyhia, R Onnela, P Linko, K Tigerstedt, I Tammistro, T
Chen ZR, Irvine RJ, Somogyi AA, Bochner F: Mu receptor binding of some commonly used opioids and their metabolites. Life Sci 1991; 48:2165–71Chen, ZR Irvine, RJ Somogyi, AA Bochner, F
Lalovic B, Kharasch E, Hoffer C, Risler L, Liu-Chen LY, Shen DD: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral oxycodone in healthy human subjects: Role of circulating active metabolites. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 79:461–79Lalovic, B Kharasch, E Hoffer, C Risler, L Liu-Chen, LY Shen, DD
Poyhia R, Kalso EA: Antinociceptive effects and central nervous system depression caused by oxycodone and morphine in rats. Pharmacol Toxicol 1992; 70:125–30Poyhia, R Kalso, EA
Backlund M, Lindrgen L, Kajimoto Y, Rosenberg PH: Comparison of epidural morphine and oxycodone for pain after abdominal surgery. J Clin Anesth 1997; 9:30–5Backlund, M Lindrgen, L Kajimoto, Y Rosenberg, PH
Leow KP, Smith MT: The antinociceptive potencies of oxycodone, noroxycodone and morphine after intracerebroventricular administration to rats. Life Sci 1994; 54:1229–36Leow, KP Smith, MT
Ross FB, Smith MT: The intrinsic antinociceptive effects of oxycodone appear to be κ-opioid receptor mediated. Pain 1997; 73:151–7Ross, FB Smith, MT
Poyhia R, Olkkola KT, Seppala T, Kalso E: The pharmacokinetics of oxycodone after intravenous injection in adults. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 32:516–8Poyhia, R Olkkola, KT Seppala, T Kalso, E
Poyhia R, Seppala T, Olkkola KT, Kalso E: The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of oxycodone after intramuscular and oral administration to healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 33:617–21Poyhia, R Seppala, T Olkkola, KT Kalso, E
Kaiko RF, Benziger DP, Fitzmartin RD, Burke BE, Reder RF, Goldenheim PD: Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of controlled-release oxycodone. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 59:52–61Kaiko, RF Benziger, DP Fitzmartin, RD Burke, BE Reder, RF Goldenheim, PD
Heiskanen T, Olkkola KT, Kalso E: Effects of blocking CYP2D6 on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxycodone. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64:603–11Heiskanen, T Olkkola, KT Kalso, E
Huang L, Edwards SR, Smith MT: Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of oxycodone and noroxycodone in male Dark Agouti and Sprague Dawley rats: Influence of streptozotocin-induced diabetes. Pharm Res 2005; 22:1489–98Huang, L Edwards, SR Smith, MT
Horan P, Taylor J, Yamamura HI, Porreca F: Extremely long-lasting antagonistic actions of nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI) in the mouse tail-flick test. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1992; 260:1237–43Horan, P Taylor, J Yamamura, HI Porreca, F
Endoh T, Matsuura H, Tanaka C, Nagase H: Nor-binaltorphimine: A potent and selective κ-opioid receptor antagonist with long-lasting activity in vivo  . Arch Int Pharmacodyn 1992; 316:30–42Endoh, T Matsuura, H Tanaka, C Nagase, H