The marijuana plant Cannabis sp. and its derivatives and analogues, known as cannabinoids (CBs), induce many effects throughout the whole body. Herein we briefly review the gastrointestinal (GI) pharmacology of CBs, with special focus on motor function. Some drugs are available to treat nausea and emesis, and evidences in humans and animal models suggest that other GI motility alterations (gastro-oesophageal reflux, inflammatory bowel conditions or paralytic ileus) might benefit from modifications of the CB tone throughout the gut. However, central and peripheral (including GI) side effects may occur upon acute and chronic CB administration. Hopefully, the ongoing worldwide intense research on CBs will soon provide new, safer CB-based medicines.

Upon intermittent administration, hypersensitization may develop to some effects (particularly delayed gastric emptying) induced by cannabinoid agonists. CB1 antagonists/inverse agonists may show different efficacy upon repeated or single administration to block cannabinoid-induced central and gastrointestinal effects. Thus, cannabinoid effects are dependent on the pattern of drug administration.

Vincristine alters gastrointestinal motility, peripheral sensitivity and mucosal architecture. Vincristine-induced neuropathy (somatic and enteric), intestinal mucosa damage and inflammatory infiltrations are relatively long-lasting.

Repeated cisplatin induces relatively long-lasting gut dysmotility in rat associated with important histopathological and molecular alterations in the small intestinal wall. In cancer survivors, the possible chemotherapy-induced histopathological, molecular, and functional intestinal sequelae should be evaluated.

Background Cannabinoids have been traditionally used for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, but the associated central effects, through cannabinoid-1 receptors (CB1R), constitute an important drawback. Our aims were to characterize the effects of the recently developed highly potent long-acting megagonist AM841 on GI motor function and to determine its central effects in rats. Methods Male Wistar rats were used for in vitro and in vivo studies. The effect of AM841 was tested on electrically-induced twitch contractions of GI preparations (in vitro) and on GI motility measured radiographically after contrast administration (in vivo). Central effects of AM841 were evaluated using the cannabinoid tetrad. The non-selective cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 (WIN) was used for comparison. The CB1R (AM251) and CB2R (AM630) antagonists were used to characterize cannabinoid receptor-mediated effects of AM841. Key results AM841 dose-dependently reduced in vitro contractile activity of rat GI preparations via CB1R, but not CB2R or opioid receptors. In vivo, AM841 acutely and potently reduced gastric emptying and intestinal transit in a dose-dependent and AM251-sensitive manner. The in vivo GI effects of AM841 at 0.1 mg kg−1 were comparable to those induced by WIN at 5 mg kg−1. However, at this dose, AM841 did not induce any sign of the cannabinoid tetrad, whereas WIN induced significant central effects. Conclusions & Inferences The CB1R megagonist AM841 may potently depress GI motor function in the absence of central effects. This effect may be mediated peripherally and may be useful in the treatment of GI motility disorders.

Background Loperamide is a potent mu opioid receptor agonist available over the counter to treat diarrhea. Although at therapeutic doses loperamide is devoid of central effects, it may exert them if used at high doses or combined with drugs that increase its systemic and/or central bioavailability. Recently, public health and scientific interest on loperamide has increased due to a growing trend of misuse and abuse, and consequent reports on its toxicity. Our aim was to evaluate in the rat the effects of increasing loperamide doses, with increasing likelihood to induce central effects, on gastrointestinal motor function (including gastric dysmotility and nausea‐like behavior). Methods Male Wistar rats received an intraperitoneal injection of vehicle or loperamide (0.1, 1, or 10 mg kg−1). Three sets of experiments were performed to evaluate: (a) central effects (somatic nociceptive thresholds, immobility time, core temperature, spontaneous locomotor activity); (b) general gastrointestinal motility (serial X‐rays were taken 0‐8 hours after intragastric barium administration and analyzed semiquantitatively, morphometrically, and densitometrically); and (c) bedding intake (a rodent indirect marker of nausea). Animals from sets 1 and 3 were used to evaluate gastric dysmotility ex vivo at 2 and 4 hours after administration, respectively. Key Results Loperamide significantly induced antinociception, hypothermia, and hypolocomotion (but not catalepsy) at high doses and dose‐dependently reduced gastrointestinal motor function, with the intestine exhibiting higher sensitivity than the stomach. Whereas bedding intake occurred early and transiently, gastric dysmotility was much more persistent. Conclusions and inferences Our results suggest that loperamide‐induced nausea and gastric dysmotility might be temporally dissociated.

No abstract

The automated method developed here needed little investigator input, provided high-resolution results with short computing times, and automatically compensated for breathing and other small movements, allowing recordings to be made without anesthesia. Although slow and/or infrequent events could not be detected in the short recording periods analyzed to date (17-20 seconds), this novel system enhances the analysis of in vivo motility in conscious animals.