Constitutive activity in cannabinoid receptors

The cannabinoid receptors are G protein-coupled receptors activated by endocannabinoids or exogenous agonist such as tetrahydrocannabinol. Upon agonist binding, cannabinoid receptors will activate G proteins of the Gi family, which in turn inhibits adenylyl cyclase. Recently, inverse agonists and neutral antagonist for cannabinoid receptors have been discovered, demonstrating constitutive activity of the cannabinoid receptors. This chapter will discuss the current state of the art and provide a framework for evaluating constitutive receptor activity and distinguishing constitutive receptor activity from constitutive endogenous agonist tone.

Human abuse potential and cognitive effects of taranabant, a cannabinoid 1 receptor inverse agonist: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, crossover study in recreational polydrug users

INTRODUCTION

Taranabant is a cannabinoid 1 receptor inverse agonist that was in development for treatment of obesity. Because of central nervous system effects, the study was performed to assess the abuse potential and cognitive effects of taranabant in recreational polydrug users compared with phentermine, dronabinol, and placebo.

METHODS

Stimulant- and cannabis-experienced polydrug users (N = 30) were randomized in a double-blind crossover study to receive taranabant 2, 4, 10, and 20 mg; phentermine 45 and 90 mg; dronabinol 20 mg; and placebo. Subjective and neurocognitive measures were administered for 24 hours, and peak/peak change from baseline effects were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Phentermine 45 and 90 mg showed abuse-related subjective effects versus placebo, including drug liking, overall drug liking, and other positive/stimulant effects, whereas dronabinol 20 mg showed abuse-related positive, cannabis-like, and sedative effects. Taranabant was not significantly different from placebo on most of the subjective measures other than negative/dysphoric effects at the highest dose, and its effects were significantly less pronounced relative to phentermine and dronabinol on most measures. Phentermine improved cognitive/motor performance and dronabinol impaired motor/cognitive performance on some measures, whereas taranabant 4 and 20 mg had minor impairment effects on manual tracking.

CONCLUSIONS

The phentermine and dronabinol results demonstrate the validity and sensitivity of the study. Taranabant did not consistently show stimulant/cannabis-like effects or abuse potential in recreational polydrug users, indicating that cannabinoid 1 receptor inverse agonists/antagonists are unlikely to be recreationally abused.