-
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Feb 2019Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired...
OBJECTIVES
Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired neuromuscular transmission. Since the field of CMSs is steadily expanding, the present review aimed at summarizing and discussing current knowledge and recent advances concerning the etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of CMSs.
METHODS
Systematic literature review.
RESULTS
Currently, mutations in 32 genes are made responsible for autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive CMSs. These mutations concern 8 presynaptic, 4 synaptic, 15 post-synaptic, and 5 glycosilation proteins. These proteins function as ion-channels, enzymes, or structural, signalling, sensor, or transporter proteins. The most common causative genes are CHAT, COLQ, RAPSN, CHRNE, DOK7, and GFPT1. Phenotypically, these mutations manifest as abnormal fatigability or permanent or fluctuating weakness of extra-ocular, facial, bulbar, axial, respiratory, or limb muscles, hypotonia, or developmental delay. Cognitive disability, dysmorphism, neuropathy, or epilepsy are rare. Low- or high-frequency repetitive nerve stimulation may show an abnormal increment or decrement, and SF-EMG an increased jitter or blockings. Most CMSs respond favourably to acetylcholine-esterase inhibitors, 3,4-diamino-pyridine, salbutamol, albuterol, ephedrine, fluoxetine, or atracurium.
CONCLUSIONS
CMSs are an increasingly recognised group of genetically transmitted defects, which usually respond favorably to drugs enhancing the neuromuscular transmission. CMSs need to be differentiated from neuromuscular disorders due to muscle or nerve dysfunction.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Humans; Mutation; Myasthenic Syndromes, Congenital; Neuromuscular Agents; Proteins
PubMed: 30808424
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-019-1025-5 -
Cureus Dec 2023Myasthenia gravis (MG), a rare disease, is the most common neuromuscular junction problem. It's the quintessential autoimmune disease with ocular, bulbar, respiratory,... (Review)
Review
Myasthenia gravis (MG), a rare disease, is the most common neuromuscular junction problem. It's the quintessential autoimmune disease with ocular, bulbar, respiratory, axial, and limb muscles exhibiting a typical fatigable weakening due to the development of antibodies against the acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Infections, stress, surgeries, thymus gland anomalies, and pharmaceutical side effects can also cause it. Ocular symptoms are initially experienced by most of the sufferers. The majority of the sufferers will go through at least one episode of symptom exacerbation during their illness. The immune system in MG interferes with nerve-muscle communication, causing muscles to become weak and tired quickly. The actual cause is not yet known, but a problem in the thymus gland may be the cause. In a person suffering from this disease, the size of the thymus becomes larger than normal, which is also called thymic hyperplasia. It is more common for women to have early-onset MG (EOMG) than for males to have late-onset MG (LOMG). Merely clinical evidence, encompassing the patients' medical history and physical indications of fluctuating muscle weakness in a specific region, is utilized to diagnose MG. Complementary diagnostic procedures and lab techniques aid in confirming the synaptic dysfunction and characterizing its kind and degree. Early diagnosis and the availability of effective treatments have reduced the burden of severe impairment and high mortality previously associated with MG. Current immunomodulation-based therapies come with side effects brought on by persistent immune suppression. Improved knowledge of this relatively uncommon but curable condition is required among primary carers. The objective of this review is to provide information about MG and to help people recognize its symptoms and start treatment without panic so that the progression of this disease can be stopped and complications can be avoided.
PubMed: 38186498
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One approach to symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One approach to symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the brain by blocking the action of the enzyme responsible for the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. This can be done by a group of drugs known as cholinesterase inhibitors. Donepezil is a cholinesterase inhibitor.This review is an updated version of a review first published in 1998.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease; to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of donepezil; and to assess the effect of donepezil on healthcare resource use and costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and a number of other sources on 20 May 2017 to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. In addition, we contacted members of the Donepezil Study Group and Eisai Inc.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all double-blind, randomised controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was administered to people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease for 12 weeks or more and its effects compared with those of placebo in a parallel group of patients, or where two different doses of donepezil were compared.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One reviewer (JSB) extracted data on cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioural symptoms, global clinical state, quality of life, adverse events, deaths and healthcare resource costs. Where appropriate and possible, we estimated pooled treatment effects. We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty studies involving 8257 participants met the inclusion criteria of the review, of which 28 studies reported results in sufficient detail for the meta-analyses. Most studies were of six months' duration or less. Only one small trial lasted 52 weeks. The studies tested mainly donepezil capsules at a dose of 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day. Two studies tested a slow-release oral formulation that delivered 23 mg/day. Participants in 21 studies had mild to moderate disease, in five studies moderate to severe, and in four severe disease. Seventeen studies were industry funded or sponsored, four studies were funded independently of industry and for nine studies there was no information on source of funding.Our main analysis compared the safety and efficacy of donepezil 10 mg/day with placebo at 24 to 26 weeks of treatment. Thirteen studies contributed data from 3396 participants to this analysis. Eleven of these studies were multicentre studies. Seven studies recruited patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, two with moderate to severe, and four with severe Alzheimer's disease, with a mean age of about 75 years. Almost all evidence was of moderate quality, downgraded due to study limitations.After 26 weeks of treatment, donepezil compared with placebo was associated with better outcomes for cognitive function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog, range 0 to 70) (mean difference (MD) -2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -2.02, 1130 participants, 5 studies), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37, 1757 participants, 7 studies) and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB, range 0 to 100) (MD 5.92, 95% CI 4.53 to 7.31, 1348 participants, 5 studies). Donepezil was also associated with better function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living score for severe Alzheimer's disease (ADCS-ADL-sev) (MD 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.85, 733 participants, 3 studies). A higher proportion of participants treated with donepezil experienced improvement on the clinician-rated global impression of change scale (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.39, 1674 participants, 6 studies). There was no difference between donepezil and placebo for behavioural symptoms measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.43 to 0.19, 1035 participants, 4 studies) or by the Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD) scale (MD 0.4, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.08, 194 participants, 1 study). There was also no difference between donepezil and placebo for Quality of Life (QoL) (MD -2.79, 95% CI -8.15 to 2.56, 815 participants, 2 studies).Participants receiving donepezil were more likely to withdraw from the studies before the end of treatment (24% versus 20%, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50, 2846 participants, 12 studies) or to experience an adverse event during the studies (72% vs 65%, OR 1.59, 95% 1.31 to 1.95, 2500 participants, 10 studies).There was no evidence of a difference between donepezil and placebo for patient total healthcare resource utilisation.Three studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 5 mg/day over 26 weeks. The 5 mg dose was associated with slightly worse cognitive function on the ADAS-Cog, but not on the MMSE or SIB, with slightly better QoL and with fewer adverse events and withdrawals from treatment. Two studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 23 mg/day. There were no differences on efficacy outcomes, but fewer participants on 10 mg/day experienced adverse events or withdrew from treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence that people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease treated for periods of 12 or 24 weeks with donepezil experience small benefits in cognitive function, activities of daily living and clinician-rated global clinical state. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive compared with placebo when assessing total healthcare resource costs. Benefits on 23 mg/day were no greater than on 10 mg/day, and benefits on the 10 mg/day dose were marginally larger than on the 5 mg/day dose, but the rates of withdrawal and of adverse events before end of treatment were higher the higher the dose.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Donepezil; Humans; Indans; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29923184
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001190.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2006Since the introduction of the first cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) in 1997, most clinicians and probably most patients would consider the cholinergic drugs, donepezil,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the introduction of the first cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) in 1997, most clinicians and probably most patients would consider the cholinergic drugs, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, to be the first line pharmacotherapy for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.The drugs have slightly different pharmacological properties, but they all work by inhibiting the breakdown of acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter associated with memory, by blocking the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. The most that these drugs could achieve is to modify the manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane reviews of each ChEI for Alzheimer's disease have been completed (Birks 2005, Birks 2005b and Loy 2005). Despite the evidence from the clinical studies and the intervening clinical experience the debate on whether ChEIs are effective continues.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register was searched using the terms 'donepezil', 'E2020' , 'Aricept' , galanthamin* galantamin* reminyl, rivastigmine, exelon, "ENA 713" and ENA-713 on 12 June 2005. This Register contains up-to-date records of all major health care databases and many ongoing trial databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All unconfounded, blinded, randomized trials in which treatment with a ChEI was compared with placebo or another ChEI for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by one reviewer (JSB), pooled where appropriate and possible, and the pooled treatment effects, or the risks and benefits of treatment estimated.
MAIN RESULTS
The results of 13 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials demonstrate that treatment for periods of 6 months and one year, with donepezil, galantamine or rivastigmine at the recommended dose for people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease produced improvements in cognitive function, on average -2.7 points (95%CI -3.0 to -2.3), in the midrange of the 70 point ADAS-Cog Scale. Study clinicians blind to other measures rated global clinical state more positively in treated patients. Benefits of treatment were also seen on measures of activities of daily living and behaviour. None of these treatment effects are large. There is nothing to suggest the effects are less for patients with severe dementia or mild dementia, although there is very little evidence for other than mild to moderate dementia.More patients leave ChEI treatment groups, approximately 29 %, on account of adverse events than leave the placebo groups (18%). There is evidence of more adverse events in total in the patients treated with a ChEI than with placebo. Although many types of adverse event were reported, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, were significantly more frequent in the ChEI groups than in placebo. There are four studies, all supported by one of the pharmaceutical companies, in which two ChEIs were compared, two studies of donepezil compared with galantamine, and two of donepezil compared with rivastigmine. In three studies the patients were not blinded to treatment, only the fourth, DON vs RIV/Bullock is double blind. Two of the studies provide little evidence, they are of 12 weeks duration, which is barely long enough to complete the drug titration. There is no evidence from DON vs GAL/Wilcock of a treatment difference between donepezil and galantamine at 52 weeks for cognition, activities of daily living, the numbers who leave the trial before the end of treatment, the number who suffer any adverse event, or any specific adverse event. There is no evidence from DON vs RIV/Bullock of a difference between donepezil and rivastigmine for cognitive function, activities of daily living and behavioural disturbance at two years. Fewer patients suffer adverse events on donepezil than rivastigmine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The three cholinesterase inhibitors are efficacious for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. It is not possible to identify those who will respond to treatment prior to treatment. There is no evidence that treatment with a ChEI is not cost effective. Despite the slight variations in the mode of action of the three cholinesterase inhibitors there is no evidence of any differences between them with respect to efficacy. There appears to be less adverse effects associated with donepezil compared with rivastigmine. It may be that galantamine and rivastigmine match donepezil in tolerability if a careful and gradual titration routine over more than three months is used. Titration with donepezil is more straightforward and the lower dose may be worth consideration.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Nootropic Agents; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 16437532
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005593 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their effects on AHR can provide valuable information about the underlying disease pathophysiology. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of biologics on allergen-specific and non-allergen-specific airway responses in patients with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including risk-of-bias assessment. PubMed and Ovid were searched for studies published between January 1997 and December 2021. Eligible studies were randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of biologics on AHR, early allergic response (EAR) and/or late allergic response (LAR) in patients with asthma.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Bronchoprovocation testing was allergen-specific in 18 studies and non-allergen-specific in 12 studies. Omalizumab reduced AHR to methacholine, acetylcholine or adenosine monophosphate (3/9 studies), and reduced EAR (4/5 studies) and LAR (2/3 studies). Mepolizumab had no effect on AHR (3/3 studies), EAR or LAR (1/1 study). Tezepelumab reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol (3/3 studies), and reduced EAR and LAR (1/1 study). Pitrakinra reduced LAR, with no effect on AHR (1/1 study). Etanercept reduced AHR to methacholine (1/2 studies). No effects were observed for lebrikizumab, tocilizumab, efalizumab, IMA-638 and anti-OX40 ligand on AHR, EAR or LAR; benralizumab on LAR; tralokinumab on AHR; and Ro-24-7472 on AHR or LAR (all 1/1 study each). No dupilumab or reslizumab studies were identified.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab and tezepelumab reduced EAR and LAR to allergens. Tezepelumab consistently reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol. These findings provide insights into AHR mechanisms and the precise effects of asthma biologics. Furthermore, findings suggest that tezepelumab broadly targets allergen-specific and non-allergic forms of AHR, and the underlying cells and mediators involved in asthma.
PubMed: 37496824
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S410592 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Dystonia is usually a lifelong condition with persistent pain and disability. Focal dystonia affects a single part of the body; generalised dystonia can affect most or... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dystonia is usually a lifelong condition with persistent pain and disability. Focal dystonia affects a single part of the body; generalised dystonia can affect most or all of the body. It is more common in women, and some types of dystonia are more common in people of European Ashkenazi Jewish descent.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, surgical treatments, and physical treatments for focal, and for generalised dystonia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 15 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acetylcholine release inhibitors (botulinum toxin), acupuncture, anticholinergic/antihistaminic drugs, anticonvulsants, atypical antipsychotic drugs, benzodiazepines, biofeedback, chiropractic manipulation, deep brain stimulation of thalamus and globus pallidus, dopaminergic agonists and antagonists, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) analogues, microvascular decompression, muscle relaxants, myectomy, occupational therapy, osteopathy, pallidotomy, physiotherapy, selective peripheral denervation, serotonergic agonists and antagonists, speech therapy, and thalamotomy.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins; Dystonia; Dystonia Musculorum Deformans; Dystonic Disorders; GABA Antagonists; Globus Pallidus; Humans
PubMed: 21663705
DOI: No ID Found -
Toxins Feb 2021AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) has been used for various cosmetic purposes, including minimization of moderate to severe lines, or other cosmetic indications, in the...
AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) has been used for various cosmetic purposes, including minimization of moderate to severe lines, or other cosmetic indications, in the face and neck. We carried out a systematic review to identify all relevant evidence on the treatment approaches and outcomes of aboBoNT-A as a cosmetic treatment of the middle and lower areas of the face, and the neck. Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, congress proceedings and review bibliographies were searched for relevant studies. Identified articles were screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Of 560 unique articles identified, 10 were included for data extraction (three observational studies, 1 randomized controlled trial [with two articles] and five non-randomized trials). The articles provided data on gummy/asymmetric smile (2), marionette lines (5), masseter muscle volume (2), nasal wrinkles (2), perioral wrinkles (3) and the platysma muscle (4). All articles reporting on efficacy of aboBoNT-A demonstrated positive results, including reduction of wrinkles (5), reduction of masseter muscle (2) and degree of gummy smile (1) compared with before treatment. No serious adverse events were reported and patient satisfaction was high. In conclusion, positive findings support further research of aboBoNT-A for the middle and lower areas of the face, and in the neck, which are largely unapproved indications.
Topics: Acetylcholine Release Inhibitors; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cosmetic Techniques; Esthetics; Face; Facial Expression; Female; Humans; Injections; Male; Middle Aged; Neck; Off-Label Use; Patient Satisfaction; Skin Aging; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33671800
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13020169 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2022The use of acetylcholine for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina is recommended by international guidelines. However, its intracoronary use is still off-label due to the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of acetylcholine for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina is recommended by international guidelines. However, its intracoronary use is still off-label due to the absence of safety studies. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify adverse events related to the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine for vasoreactivity testing to fill this gap.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies and randomized controlled trials dealing with the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine. Articles were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed) using the MeSH strategy. Three independent reviewers determined whether the studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 434 articles were selected. Data concerning clinical characteristics, study population, acetylcholine dosage, and adverse effects were retrieved from the articles. Overall, 71,566 patients were included, of which only 382 (0.5%) developed one adverse event, and there were no fatal events reported (0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Intracoronary administration of acetylcholine in the setting of coronary spasm provocation testing is safe and plays a central role in the evaluation of coronary vasomotion disorders, making it worthy of becoming a part of clinical practice in all cardiac catheterization laboratories.
PubMed: 35207403
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11041129 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2008Dystonia is usually a lifelong condition with persistent pain and disability. Focal dystonia affects a single part of the body; generalised dystonia can affect most or... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dystonia is usually a lifelong condition with persistent pain and disability. Focal dystonia affects a single part of the body; generalised dystonia can affect most or all of the body. It is more common in women, and some types of dystonia are more common in people of European Ashkenazi Jewish descent.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, surgical treatments, and physical treatments for focal, and for generalised dystonia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 13 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acetylcholine receptor inhibitors, acupuncture, anticholinergic drugs, anticonvulsants, atypical antipsychotic drugs, benzodiazepines, biofeedback, botulinum toxin, chiropractic manipulation, deep brain stimulation of thalamus and globus pallidus, dopaminergic agonists and antagonists, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) inhibitors, microvascular decompression, myectomy, occupational therapy, osteopathy, pallidotomy, physiotherapy, selective peripheral denervation, serotonergic agonists and antagonists, speech therapy, and thalamotomy.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins; Deep Brain Stimulation; Dystonia; Dystonia Musculorum Deformans; Dystonic Disorders; Follow-Up Studies; GABA Antagonists; Globus Pallidus; Humans
PubMed: 19445800
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Physiology 2022Endocannabinoids (eCBS) are endogenously derived lipid signaling molecules that serve as tissue hormones and interact with multiple targets, mostly within the...
Endocannabinoids (eCBS) are endogenously derived lipid signaling molecules that serve as tissue hormones and interact with multiple targets, mostly within the endocannabinoid system (ECS). The ECS is a highly conserved regulatory system involved in homeostatic regulation, organ formation, and immunomodulation of chordates. The term "cannabinoid" evolved from the distinctive class of plant compounds found in , an ancient herb, due to their action on CB1 and CB2 receptors. CB1/2 receptors are the primary targets for eCBs, but their effects are not limited to the ECS. Due to the high interest and extensive research on the ECS, knowledge on its constituents and physiological role is substantial and still growing. Crosstalk and multiple targeting of molecules are common features of endogenous and plant compounds. Cannabimimetic molecules can be divided according to their origin, natural or synthetic, including phytocannabinoids (pCB's) or synthetic cannabinoids (sCB's). The endocannabinoid system (ECS) consists of receptors, transporters, enzymes, and signaling molecules. In this review, we focus on the effects of cannabinoids on Cys-loop receptors. Cys-loop receptors belong to the class of membrane-bound pentameric ligand gated ion channels, each family comprising multiple subunits. Mammalians possess GABA type A receptors (GABAAR), glycine receptors (GlyR), serotonin receptors type 3 (5-HT3R), and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR). Several studies have shown different modulatory effects of CBs on multiple members of the Cys-loop receptor family. We highlight the existing knowledge, especially on subunits and protein domains with conserved binding sites for CBs and their possible pharmacological and physiological role in epilepsy and in chronic pain. We further discuss the potential for cannabinoids as first line treatments in epilepsy, chronic pain and other neuropsychiatric conditions, indicated by their polypharmacology and therapeutic profile.
PubMed: 36439263
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.1044575