The analgesic effect and adverse events of the weak opioid codeine is assumed to be mediated by its metabolite morphine. The cytochrome P-450 enzyme CYP2D6 catalysing the formation of morphine exhibits a genetic polymorphism. Two distinct phenotypes, the extensive (EMs) and poor metabolisers (PMs), are present in the population. The prevalence of PMs in the Caucasian population is 7% to 10%. Since PMs do not express functional CYP2D6, they have a severely impaired capacity to metabolise drugs which are substrates of this enzyme. Provided the analgesic effect and the adverse events of codeine are mediated by its metabolite morphine, large phenotype-related differences are to be expected and PMs, as they form only trace amounts of morphine, can serve as a model to test the hypothesis whether the analgesia and adverse events of codeine are mediated by the parent drug or its metabolite morphine. Therefore we have studied in a randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial the analgesic effect of 170 mg codeine (p.o.) compared to 20 mg morphine (p.o.) and placebo in 9 EMs and 9 PMs using the cold pressor test. The duration and intensity of the side effects were assessed using visual analogue scales (VAS). Codeine and morphine concentrations were measured in serum and urine. Compared to placebo, 20 mg morphine caused a significant increase in pain tolerance in both phenotypes, EMs and PMs (16.2+/-27.4 vs. -0.66+/-27.4 s x h, n=18). However, following administration of codeine, analgesia was only observed in EMs but not in PMs (EMs: 54.9+/-42.2 vs. 1.7+/-4.2 s x h, P < 0.01; PMs: 9.6+/-10.9 vs. 3.3+/-23.7 s x h, not significant). Adverse events were significantly more pronounced after morphine and codeine compared to placebo in both EMs and PMs. In contrast to the phenotype-related differences in the analgesic effect of codeine, however, no difference in adverse events between the phenotypes could be observed. In the pharmacokinetic studies, significant differences between the two phenotypes in the formation of morphine after codeine administration could be observed. Whereas morphine plasma concentrations were similar in PMs (Cmax: 44+/-13 nmol/l: AUC: 199+/-45 nmol x h/l) and EMs (Cmax: 48+/-17 nmol/l); AUC: 210+/-65 nmol x h/l) after morphine administration, following 170 mg codeine, morphine plasma concentrations comparable to those after morphine application were only observed in EMs (Cmax: 38+/-16 nmol/l; AUC: 173+/-90 nmol x h/l). In PMs only traces of morphine could be detected in plasma (Cmax: 2+/-1 nmol/l; AUC: 10+/-7 nmol x h/l). The percentage of the codeine dose converted to morphine and its metabolites was 3.9% in EMs and 0.17% in PMs. The interindividual variability in analgesia of codeine which is related to genetically determined differences in the formation of morphine clearly indicate that this metabolite is responsible for the analgesic effect of codeine. In contrast to the analgesic effect, frequency and intensity of the adverse events did not present significant differences between the two phenotypes. These findings have implications for the clinical use of codeine. Since side effects occurred in both EM and PM subjects, the use of codeine as an analgesic will expose 7% to 10% of patients who are PMs to the side effects of the drug without providing any beneficial analgesic effects.

The polymorphic cytochrome P450 CYP2D6 catalyses the biotransformation of at least 40 drugs. The CYP2D6 genetic polymorphism is responsible for pronounced interindividual differences in plasma concentrations and, hence, in drug action and side-effects after administration of the same dose. Provided there is a close relationship between CYP2D6 genotypes and catalytic function, genotyping could be used in the clinical setting for individualization of drug dose. In the present study, we evaluated the relationship between the in-vivo enzyme activity and 3 5 different genotypes in order to determine whether genotyping can be used to predict a person's metabolic capacity for CYP2D6-catalysed drug oxidation using sparteine as a probe drug. One hundred and ninety-five Caucasian individuals were genotyped for seven nonfunctional (CYP2D6*3, *4, *5, *6, *7, *8, *26) and eight functional alleles (CYP2D6*1, *2, *2x2, *2B, *2Bx2, *9, *10, *17). The metabolic ratio distribution for sparteine showed trimodality, with 15 poor metabolizers, 21 intermediate metabolizers, and 159 extensive and ultrarapid metabolizers. AH poor metabolizers were unambiguously identified as carriers of two nonfunctional alleles. In contrast, the most frequent functional genotypes extensively overlapped and, with few exceptions, genotype was not a useful predictor of function. Gene dose effects among homozygotes and heterozygotes of the major functional alleles were not significant and could not explain the wide variations. Only a minor fraction of phenotypical ultrarapid metabolizers, arbitrarily defined as individuals with a metabolic ratio<0.2, could be identified as carriers of three functional gene copies, including duplicated CYP2D6*2x2 alleles. Similarly, only a minor fraction of the intermediate metabolizers had predictive genotypes involving alleles coding for enzyme with impaired function. Thus, genotyping correctly identifies poor metabolizers, but quantitative prediction of drug metabolism capacity among extensive metabolizers is not possible,

Poorly controlled pain is a global public health issue. The personal, familial and societal costs are immeasurable. Only a minority of European patients have access to a comprehensive specialist pain clinic. More commonly the responsibility for chronic pain management and initiating opioid therapy rests with the primary care physician and other non‐specialist opioid prescribers. There is much confusing and conflicting information available to non‐specialist prescribers regarding opioid therapy and a great deal of unjustified fear is generated. Opioid therapy should only be initiated by competent clinicians as part of a multi‐faceted treatment programme in circumstances where more simple measures have failed. Throughout, all patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to yield the desired results and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects, the overall management strategy must be reviewed and revised. No responsible clinician will wish to pursue a failed treatment strategy or persist with an ineffective and burdensome treatment. In a considered attempt to empower and inform non‐specialist opioid prescribers, EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the experience of many years of clinical practice to produce these series of recommendations. Its success will be judged on the extent to which it contributes to an improved pain management experience for chronic pain patients across Europe.Significance: This position paper provides expert recommendations for primary care physicians and other non‐ specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, particularly those who do not have ready access to specialists in pain medicine, on the safe and appropriate use of opioid medications as part of a multi‐faceted approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients.

The pharmacokinetics of (+)‐, (‐)‐, and (+/‐)‐verapamil were studied in five healthy volunteers following i.v. administration of the drugs. Pronounced differences of the various pharmacokinetic parameters were observed between the (‐)‐ and (+)‐isomers. The values for CL, V, Vz, and Vss of the (‐)‐isomer were substantially higher as compared to the (+)‐isomer, whereas terminal t 1/ 2Z was nearly identical for both isomers. No dose dependency of the pharmacokinetics could be observed in two subjects who received 5, 7.5 and 10 mg of (‐)‐ and 5, 25 and 50 mg of (+)‐verapamil. Protein binding for the two isomers was also different. The fu of (‐)‐ (0.11) was almost twice as much as that of (+)‐verapamil (0.064). Pharmacokinetic parameters of (+/‐)‐verapamil, which was administered to three subjects who had received (+)‐ and (‐)‐ verapamil, were very similar to the averaged values of the isomers given separately. Due to the higher CL of (‐)‐verapamil the extraction ratio of the (‐)‐isomer is substantially higher. Thus, it can be anticipated that following oral administration of racemic verapamil bioavailability of (‐)‐verapamil will be substantially less. Since the (‐)‐isomer is more potent than the (+)‐isomer, the present findings could explain the reported differences in the concentration‐effect relationship after i.v. and oral administration of racemic verapamil.