镇痛药的发展进展:如何评估其真正的优点?

IF 1.3 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Igor Kissin
{"title":"镇痛药的发展进展:如何评估其真正的优点?","authors":"Igor Kissin","doi":"10.2174/2772432816666210811145249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessing analgesic drugs developed over preceding 50 years demonstrated that very intensive efforts directed at diverse molecular pain targets produced thousands of PubMed articles and the introduction of more than 50 new analgesics. Nevertheless, these analgesics did not have a sufficiently broad spectrum of action and level of effectiveness to demonstrably affect the use of opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain. Analgesics in current are only modestly effective in chronic pain (at least with respect to neuropathic pain), and the widespread application of mu-opioid receptor agonists for this purpose culminated in the global \"opioid crisis\". The introduction of every new drug is regarded as an important success, at least initially. Assessing the merit of a new analgesic is extremely complicated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this article is to describe an approach that combines very different categories of drug evaluation - multifactorial approach for the assessment of new analgesics. It is based on conclusiveness of clinical trials, novelty of a drug's molecular target, a drug's commercial appeal, and the interest in a drug reflected by scientometric indices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This approach was applied to analgesics developed in 1982-2016. It shows that although several new agents have completely novel mechanisms of action, all newly approved drugs, and drug candidates, demonstrated the same persistent problems: relatively low therapeutic advantage over previous treatment and narrow spectrum of use in different types of pain, compared to opioids or NSAIDs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of the suggested multifactorial approach to drug assessment may provide a better view of the whole spectrum of analgesics advantages and disadvantages.</p>","PeriodicalId":29871,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Progress in Analgesic Development: How to Assess its Real Merits?\",\"authors\":\"Igor Kissin\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/2772432816666210811145249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessing analgesic drugs developed over preceding 50 years demonstrated that very intensive efforts directed at diverse molecular pain targets produced thousands of PubMed articles and the introduction of more than 50 new analgesics. Nevertheless, these analgesics did not have a sufficiently broad spectrum of action and level of effectiveness to demonstrably affect the use of opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain. Analgesics in current are only modestly effective in chronic pain (at least with respect to neuropathic pain), and the widespread application of mu-opioid receptor agonists for this purpose culminated in the global \\\"opioid crisis\\\". The introduction of every new drug is regarded as an important success, at least initially. Assessing the merit of a new analgesic is extremely complicated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this article is to describe an approach that combines very different categories of drug evaluation - multifactorial approach for the assessment of new analgesics. It is based on conclusiveness of clinical trials, novelty of a drug's molecular target, a drug's commercial appeal, and the interest in a drug reflected by scientometric indices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This approach was applied to analgesics developed in 1982-2016. It shows that although several new agents have completely novel mechanisms of action, all newly approved drugs, and drug candidates, demonstrated the same persistent problems: relatively low therapeutic advantage over previous treatment and narrow spectrum of use in different types of pain, compared to opioids or NSAIDs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of the suggested multifactorial approach to drug assessment may provide a better view of the whole spectrum of analgesics advantages and disadvantages.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/2772432816666210811145249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/2772432816666210811145249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:评估过去50年开发的镇痛药物表明,针对不同分子疼痛靶点的非常密集的努力产生了数千篇PubMed文章,并引入了50多种新的镇痛药物。然而,这些镇痛药没有足够广泛的作用范围和有效水平,无法明显影响阿片类药物或非甾体抗炎药治疗疼痛的使用。目前,镇痛药在慢性疼痛(至少在神经性疼痛方面)中只有适度的效果,而为此目的而广泛应用的mu-阿片受体激动剂在全球“阿片危机”中达到了顶峰。每一种新药的推出都被视为重大的成功,至少在最初阶段是如此。评估一种新型镇痛药的优点是极其复杂的。目的:本文的目的是描述一种方法,结合非常不同类别的药物评价-多因素的方法来评估新的镇痛药。它是基于临床试验的结论性、药物分子靶点的新颖性、药物的商业吸引力以及科学计量指标所反映的对药物的兴趣。结果:该方法适用于1982-2016年开发的镇痛药。研究表明,尽管一些新药物具有全新的作用机制,但所有新批准的药物和候选药物都表现出同样的持续性问题:与以往的治疗相比,治疗优势相对较低,与阿片类药物或非甾体抗炎药相比,用于不同类型疼痛的范围较窄。结论:采用建议的多因素方法进行药物评价可以更好地了解镇痛药的全谱优缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Progress in Analgesic Development: How to Assess its Real Merits?

Background: Assessing analgesic drugs developed over preceding 50 years demonstrated that very intensive efforts directed at diverse molecular pain targets produced thousands of PubMed articles and the introduction of more than 50 new analgesics. Nevertheless, these analgesics did not have a sufficiently broad spectrum of action and level of effectiveness to demonstrably affect the use of opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain. Analgesics in current are only modestly effective in chronic pain (at least with respect to neuropathic pain), and the widespread application of mu-opioid receptor agonists for this purpose culminated in the global "opioid crisis". The introduction of every new drug is regarded as an important success, at least initially. Assessing the merit of a new analgesic is extremely complicated.

Objective: The aim of this article is to describe an approach that combines very different categories of drug evaluation - multifactorial approach for the assessment of new analgesics. It is based on conclusiveness of clinical trials, novelty of a drug's molecular target, a drug's commercial appeal, and the interest in a drug reflected by scientometric indices.

Results: This approach was applied to analgesics developed in 1982-2016. It shows that although several new agents have completely novel mechanisms of action, all newly approved drugs, and drug candidates, demonstrated the same persistent problems: relatively low therapeutic advantage over previous treatment and narrow spectrum of use in different types of pain, compared to opioids or NSAIDs.

Conclusion: The use of the suggested multifactorial approach to drug assessment may provide a better view of the whole spectrum of analgesics advantages and disadvantages.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
55
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信