Changes in the in vitro pharmacodynamic properties of metoprolol in atria isolated from spontaneously hypertensive rats

Inverse agonism and its therapeutic significance

A large number of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) show varying degrees of basal or constitutive activity. This constitutive activity is usually minimal in natural receptors but is markedly observed in wild type and mutated (naturally or induced) receptors. According to conventional two-state drug receptor interaction model, binding of a ligand may initiate activity (agonist with varying degrees of positive intrinsic activity) or prevent the effect of an agonist (antagonist with zero intrinsic activity). Inverse agonists bind with the constitutively active receptors, stabilize them, and thus reduce the activity (negative intrinsic activity). Receptors of many classes (α-and β-adrenergic, histaminergic, GABAergic, serotoninergic, opiate, and angiotensin receptors) have shown basal activity in suitable in vitro models. Several drugs that have been conventionally classified as antagonists (β-blockers, antihistaminics) have shown inverse agonist effects on corresponding constitutively active receptors. Nearly all H₁ and H₂ antihistaminics (antagonists) have been shown to be inverse agonists. Among the β-blockers, carvedilol and bucindolol demonstrate low level of inverse agonism as compared to propranolol and nadolol. Several antipsychotic drugs (D₂ receptors antagonist), antihypertensive (AT₁ receptor antagonists), antiserotoninergic drugs and opioid antagonists have significant inverse agonistic activity that contributes partly or wholly to their therapeutic value. Inverse agonism may also help explain the underlying mechanism of beneficial effects of carvedilol in congestive failure, naloxone-induced withdrawal syndrome in opioid dependence, clozapine in psychosis, and candesartan in cardiac hypertrophy. Understanding inverse agonisms has paved a way for newer drug development. It is now possible to develop agents, which have only desired therapeutic value and are devoid of unwanted adverse effect. Pimavanserin (ACP-103), a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist, attenuates psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease with psychosis and is devoid of extrapyramidal side effects. This dissociation is also evident from the development of anxioselective benzodiazepines devoid of habit-forming potential. Hemopressin is a peptide ligand that acts as an antagonist as well as inverse agonist. This agent acts as an antinociceptive agent in different in vivo models of pain. Treatment of obesity by drugs having inverse agonist activity at CB_1/2 receptors is also underway. An exciting development is evaluation of β-blockers in chronic bronchial asthma—a condition akin to congestive heart failure where β-blockade has become the standard mode of therapy. Synthesis and evaluation of selective agents is underway. Therefore, inverse agonism is an important aspect of drug–receptor interaction and has immense untapped therapeutic potential.

Measurement of inverse agonism in β-adrenoceptors

Increasing numbers of compounds, previously classified as antagonists, were shown to inhibit this spontaneous or constitutive receptor activity, instead of leave it unaffected as expected for a formal antagonist. In addition, some other antagonists did not have any effect by themselves, but prevented the inhibition of constitutive activity induced by thought-to-be antagonists. These thought-to-be antagonists with negative efficacy are now known as "inverse agonists." Inverse agonism at βAR has been evidenced for both subtypes in wild-type GPCRs systems and in engineered systems with high constitutive activity. It is important to mention that native systems are of particular importance for analyzing the in vivo relevance of constitutive activity because these systems have physiological expression levels of target receptors. Studies of inverse agonism of β blockers in physiological setting have also evidenced that pathophysiological conditions can affect pharmacodynamic properties of these ligands. To date, hundreds of clinically well-known drugs have been tested and classified for this property. Prominent examples include the beta-blockers propranolol, alprenolol, pindolol, and timolol used for treating hypertension, angina pectoris, and arrhythmia that act on the β₂ARs, metoprolol, and bisoprolol used for treating hypertension, coronary heart disease, and arrhythmias by acting on β₁ARs. Inverse agonists seem to be useful in the treatment of chronic disease characterized by harmful effects resulting from β₁AR and β₂AR overactivation, such as heart failure and asthma, respectively.

Ivabradine reduces heart rate while preserving metabolic fluxes and energy status of healthy normoxic working hearts

Heart rate reduction (HRR) is an important target in the management of patients with chronic stable angina. Most available drugs for HRR, such as β-blockers, have adverse effects, including on cardiac energy substrate metabolism, a well-recognized determinant of cardiac homeostasis. This study aimed at 1) testing whether HRR by ivabradine (IVA) alters substrate metabolism in the healthy normoxic working heart and 2) comparing the effect of IVA with that of the β-blocker metoprolol (METO). This was assessed using our well-established model of ex vivo mouse heart perfusion in the working mode, which enables concomitant evaluation of myocardial contractility and metabolic fluxes using (13)C-labeled substrates. Hearts were perfused in the absence (controls; n = 10) or presence of IVA (n = 10, 3 μM) with or without atrial pacing to abolish HRR in the IVA group. IVA significantly reduced HR (35 ± 5%) and increased stroke volume (39 ± 9%) while maintaining similar cardiac output, contractility, power, and efficiency. Effects of IVA on HR and stroke volume were reversed by atrial pacing. At the metabolic level, IVA did not impact on substrate selection to citrate formation, rates of glycolysis, or tissue levels of high-energy phosphates. In contrast, METO, at concentrations up to 40 μM, decreased markedly cardiac function (flow: 25 ± 6%; stroke volume: 30 ± 10%; contractility: 31 ± 9%) as well as glycolysis (2.9-fold) but marginally affected HR. Collectively, these results demonstrate that IVA selectively reduces HR while preserving energy substrate metabolism of normoxic healthy working mouse hearts perfused ex vivo, a model that mimics to some extent the denervated transplanted heart. Our results provide the impetus for testing selective HRR by IVA on cardiac substrate metabolism in pathological models.