Published in

Pain Reviews, 3-4(8), p. 171-191

DOI: 10.1191/0968130201pr183ra

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The role of morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) in pain control

Journal article published in 2001 by Maree T. Smith ORCID, Samantha M. South
This paper was not found in any repository; the policy of its publisher is unknown or unclear.
This paper was not found in any repository; the policy of its publisher is unknown or unclear.

Full text: Unavailable

Question mark in circle
Preprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Postprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Published version: policy unknown

Abstract

Morphine-6beta-D-glucuronide (M6G) is an analgesically active metabolite of morphine, accounting for approximate to10% of the morphine dose when administered by systemic routes to humans. Although M6G is more hydrophilic than morphine, it crosses the blood-brain barrier, albeit relatively slowly. For this reason, it is generally thought that, after chronic dosing, M6G contributes significantly to the analgesic effects of systemically administered morphine. Owing to its polar nature, M6G is cleared from the systemic circulation primarily via renal elimination. As M6G accumulates in patients with renal impairment, there is an increased risk of M6G-induced respiratory depression in renal failure patients who are being dosed chronically with systemic morphine. Consistent with its analgesic and respiratory depressant properties, M6G binds to the p-opioid receptor in a naloxone-reversible manner. Although the affinity of M6G for the mu-opioid receptor is similar to or slightly less than that of morphine, preclinical studies in rodents show that M6G is one to two orders of magnitude more potent than morphine when administered by central routes. This major discrepancy between the markedly higher intrinsic antinociceptive potency of M6G relative to morphine, despite their similar p-opioid receptor binding affinities, is difficult to reconcile. It has been proposed that M6G mediates its pain-relieving effects through a novel 'M6G opioid receptor', while others have argued that M6G may have higher efficacy than morphine for transduction of intracellular events. When administered by parenteral routes to rodents, M6G's antinociceptive potency is no more than twofold higher than morphine. In humans, the analgesic efficacy and respiratory depressant potency of M6G relative to morphine have been assessed in a number of short-term studies involving the intrathecal or intravenous routes of administration. For example, in hip replacement patients, intrathecal M6G provided excellent postoperative analgesia but the occurrence of late respiratory depression in 10% of these patients raised serious concern about safety. In postoperative patients, intravenous M6G administered by means of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), or bolus plus PCA, produced no analgesia in one study and limited analgesia in another. Similarly, there was a lack of significant analgesia in healthy volunteers who received intravenous M6G for the alleviation of experimental pain (carbon dioxide applied to the nasal mucosa). In contrast, satisfactory analgesia was produced by bolus doses of intravenous M6G administered to patients with cancer pain, and to healthy volunteers with experimentally-induced ischaemic, electrical or thermal (ice water) pain. Studies to date in healthy volunteers suggest that intravenous M6G may be a less potent respiratory depressant and have a lower propensity for producing nausea and vomiting than morphine. However, it is unclear whether equi-analgesic doses of M6G and morphine were compared. Clearly, more extensive short-term trials, together with studies involving chronic M6G administration, are necessary before the potential clinical utility of M6G as an analgesic drug in its own right can be determined.