Opioids are widely used as therapeutic agents against moderate to severe acute and chronic pain. Still, these classes of analgesic drugs have many potential limitations as they induce analgesic tolerance, addiction and numerous behavioural adverse effects that often result in patient non-compliance. As opium and opioids have been traditionally used as painkillers, the exact mechanisms of their adverse reactions over repeated use are multifactorial and not fully understood. Older adults suffer from cancer and non-cancer chronic pain more than younger adults, due to the physiological changes related to ageing and their reduced metabolic capabilities and thus show an increased number of adverse reactions to opioid drugs. All clinically used opioids are μ-opioid receptor agonists, and the major adverse effects are directly or potentially connected to this receptor. Multifunctional opioid ligands or peripherally restricted opioids may elicit fewer adverse effects, as shown in preclinical studies, but these results need reproducibility from further extensive clinical trials. The current review aims to overview various mechanisms involved in the adverse effects induced by opioids, to provide a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and, ultimately, to help develop an effective therapeutic strategy to better manage pain.

Opioid receptors are currently classified as µ (mu: mOP), δ (delta: dOP), κ (kappa: kOP) with a fourth related non-classical opioid receptor for nociceptin/orphainin FQ, NOP. Morphine is the current gold standard analgesic acting at MOP receptors but produces a range of variably troublesome side-effects, in particular tolerance. There is now good laboratory evidence to suggest that blocking DOP while activating MOP produces analgesia (or antinociception) without the development of tolerance. Simultaneous targeting of MOP and DOP can be accomplished by: (i) co-administering two selective drugs, (ii) administering one non-selective drug, or (iii) designing a single drug that specifically targets both receptors; a bivalent ligand. Bivalent ligands generally contain two active centres or pharmacophores that are variably separated by a chemical spacer and there are several interesting examples in the literature. For example linking the MOP agonist oxymorphone to the DOP antagonist naltrindole produces a MOP/DOP bivalent ligand that should produce analgesia with reduced tolerance. The type of response/selectivity produced depends on the pharmacophore combination (e.g. oxymorphone and naltrindole as above) and the space between them. Production and evaluation of bivalent ligands is an emerging field in drug design and for anaesthesia, analgesics that are designed not to be highly selective morphine-like (MOP) ligands represents a new avenue for the production of useful drugs for chronic (and in particular cancer) pain.

There is a vast amount of pharmacological evidence favouring the existence of multiple subtypes of opioid receptors. In addition to the primary classification of µ (mu: MOP), δ (delta: DOP), κ (kappa: KOP) receptors, and the nociceptin/orphanin FQ peptide receptor (NOP), various groups have further classified the pharmacological µ into µ_1–3, the δ into δ_1–2/δ_{complexed/non-complexed}, and the κ into κ_1–3. From an anaesthetic perspective, the suggestions that µ₁ produced analgesia and µ₂ produced respiratory depression are particularly important. However, subsequent to the formal identification of the primary opioid receptors (MOP/DOP/KOP/NOP) by cloning and the use of this information to produce knockout animals, evidence for these additional subtypes is lacking. Indeed, knockout of a single gene (and hence receptor) results in a loss of all function associated with that receptor. In the case of MOP knockout, analgesia and respiratory depression is lost. This suggests that further sub-classification of the primary types is unwise. So how can the wealth of pharmacological data be reconciled with new molecular information? In addition to some simple misclassification (κ₃ is probably NOP), there are several possibilities which include: (i) alternate splicing of a common gene product, (ii) receptor dimerization, (iii) interaction of a common gene product with other receptors/signalling molecules, or (iv) a combination of (i)–(iii). Assigning variations in ligand activity (pharmacological subtypes) to one or more of these molecular suggestions represents an interesting challenge for future opioid research.

Efficient repetitive clinical use of morphine is limited by its numerous side effects, whereas analgesic tolerance necessitates subsequent increases in morphine dose to achieve adequate levels of analgesia. While many studies focused on analgesic tolerance, the effect of morphine dosing on non-analgesic effects has been overlooked. This study aimed to characterize morphine-induced behavior and the development and progression of morphine-induced behavioral tolerance. Adult male Sprague–Dawley rats were repetitively treated with subcutaneous morphine for 14 days in two dose groups (A: 5 mg/kg/day (b.i.d.) → 10 mg/kg/day; B: 10 mg/kg/day (b.i.d.) → 20 mg/kg/day). Motor behavior was assessed daily (distance traveled, speed, moving time, rearing, rotation) in an open-field arena, before and 30 min post-injections. Antinociception was measured using tail-flick and hot-plate assays. All measured parameters were highly suppressed in both dosing groups on the first treatment day, followed by a gradual manifestation of behavioral tolerance as the treatment progressed. Animals in the high-dose group showed increased locomotor activity after 10 days of morphine treatment. This excitatory phase converted to an inhibition of behavior when a higher morphine dose was introduced. We suggest that the excitatory locomotor effects of repetitive high-dose morphine exposure represent a signature of its behavioral and antinociceptive tolerance.

Adherence to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is crucial for its efficacy. Subcutaneous AIT requires monthly visits (or more extended in the case of venom immunotherapy), while sublingual is performed with a daily intake of allergen drops. Non-adherence to an AIT schedule and premature discontinuation are common problems. Results from various studies have concluded to controversial results on the rate of AIT adherence. The aim of this review was to describe the problem of non-adherence and to offer some evidence-based advice to allergologists, on how to increase it. Better patient education at the beginning of treatment, sharing with patient the decision on which type of immunotherapy to select, and showing sincere interest on their treatment concerns are some tips that can help to increase adherence. A well-organized allergologist time schedule not only increases safety but also offers the possibility of close follow-up and an increase in patient loyalty.