Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most popular and widely used drugs for the treatment of pain and fever. It occupies a unique position among analgesic drugs. Unlike NSAIDs it is almost unanimously considered to have no antiinflammatory activity and does not produce gastrointestinal damage or untoward cardiorenal effects. Unlike opiates it is almost ineffective in intense pain and has no depressant effect on respiration. Although paracetamol has been used clinically for more than a century, its mode of action has been a mystery until about one year ago, when two independent groups (Zygmunt and colleagues and Bertolini and colleagues) produced experimental data unequivocally demonstrating that the analgesic effect of paracetamol is due to the indirect activation of cannabinoid CB 1 receptors. In brain and spinal cord, paracetamol, following deacetylation to its primary amine (p-aminophenol), is conjugated with arachidonic acid to form N-arachidonoylphenolamine, a compound already known (AM404) as an endogenous cannabinoid. The involved enzyme is fatty acid amide hydrolase. N-arachidonoylphenolamine is an agonist at TRPV1 receptors and an inhibitor of cellular anandamide uptake, which leads to increased levels of endogenous cannabinoids; moreover, it inhibits cyclooxygenases in the brain, albeit at concentrations that are probably not attainable with analgesic doses of paracetamol. CB 1 receptor antagonist, at a dose level that completely prevents the analgesic activity of a selective CB 1 receptor agonist, completely prevents the analgesic ac- 250CNS Drug Reviews Vol. 12, No. 3-4, pp. 250-275 © 2006 tivity of paracetamol. Thus, paracetamol acts as a pro-drug, the active one being a cannabinoid. These findings finally explain the mechanism of action of paracetamol and the peculiarity of its effects, including the behavioral ones. Curiously, just when the first CB 1 agonists are being introduced for pain treatment, it comes out that an indirect cannabinomimetic had been extensively used (and sometimes overused) for more than a century.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective.-To quantify and characterize the similarities and the differences between chronic migraine (CM) patients with medication overuse and episodic migraine (EM) patients with only occasional analgesic use. Background.-Population-level epidemiology, characteristics, mechanisms of chronic daily headache, and medication-overuse headache have been widely studied but patient characteristics have received less attention.Methods.-We compared sociodemographic data, family history, physiological and medical history, health services utilized, drugs taken/prescribed, and outcome of 2 groups of subjects: 150 patients, suffering from CM, complicated by probable medication-overuse headache (CM group), consecutively admitted during 2005 to the inpatients' ward of the Headache Centre of the University Hospital of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, to undergo withdrawal from their overused medications; 100 patients suffering from EM, uncomplicated by medication overuse (EM group), consecutively referred to the outpatients' ward of the Headache Centre during November and December 2005.Results.-All sociodemographic characteristics were significantly different between the 2 groups. As a whole, the CM group began to suffer from migraine earlier than the EM group. Drug and/or alcohol abuse was significantly higher among first-degree relatives of CM (19%) than of EM (6%) patients. The most frequent comorbid disorders were psychiatric (67%) and gastrointestinal diseases (43%) in the CM group, and allergies in the EM group (31%). Seventy percent of CM patients and 42% of EM patients were taking daily at least another drug, besides those for headache treatment. Most overused medications in the CM group were triptans (43%); the EM group used above all single NSAIDs (56%). At 3-month follow-up, prophylactic treatments reduced, by at least 50%, the frequency of headache in about three-fourths of patients of both the groups; however, headache remained significantly more frequent in the CM than in EM group: only a minority (15%) of CM patients reverted to a headache frequency comparable to that of the EM group.Conclusions.-CM patients present more multiple comorbid disorders, polypharmacy, and social impediments than EM patients. These associated conditions complicate CM clinical management. Even after withdrawal from medication overuse, CM could not be completely reverted by current prophylactic treatments.