Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Year of the Antagonist

by FRED GARDNER

This is your preliminary warning about a weight–loss drug called Rimonabant that works by blocking cannabinoid receptors in the brain. Scientists from Sanofi, France’s biggest pharmaceutical company, announced favorable clinical–trial results at this year’s meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and expect FDA approval to market Rimonabant within a year.

Cannabinoid receptors are proteins on the surface of certain cells to which certain compounds bind, setting off molecular cascades within the cells that produce effects in the body such as reduced inflammation, increased appetite, etc. Two kinds of cannabinoid receptors have been discovered — CB1, highly concentrated in the brain and central nervous system, and CB2, found mainly in tissues associated with the immune system.

There are three different kinds of cannabinoids, or chemical “agonists” that activate the cannabinoid receptors. They are, in order of evolutionary appearance: compounds made in the body for purposes of neurotransmission, compounds unique to the cannabis plant (the most famous being delta–9 THC), and compounds made in the lab — synthetics — developed in recent decades.

The cannabinoids made in the body are called “endocannabinoids” (just as the body’s endogenous morphine–like chemicals are called “endorphins”). The first to be identified, by Raphael Mechoulam and William Devane in 1992, was named “anandamide” after the Sanskrit word for “bliss.” It has since been learned that endocannabinoids help regulate the cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, excretory, immunological, nervous, reproductive, and respiratory systems.

Rimonabant is an “antagonist” drug that engages the CB1 receptors so they can’t be activated. Originally called SR–141716, it was developed by Sanofi in the early ’90s as a research tool. If a given effect is blocked by SR–141716, that effect is said to be mediated by CB1 receptors. Rimonabant is SR–141716 redefined as a “therapeutic drug” that counteracts unwanted effects — like overeating — mediated by the cannabinoid receptor system.
In a talk at the ICRS meeting entitled “Clinical Results with Rimonabant in Obesity,” Sanofi researcher Gerard Le Fur reported that the drug had done well in phase–three clinical trials involving 13,000 patients. The trials were conducted at numerous sites in the U.S. Obese patients were treated with Rimonabant for 52 weeks. “Over 72% of patients at 1 year showed a weight loss of greater than 5 percent, with over 44% showing a weight loss of greater than 10%,” according to Le Fur. “There was also an increase in HDL–cholesterol values, a reduction in triglyceride values and reductions in glucose and insulin values… The general tolerance of the compound was excellent.”

But the advent of Rimonabant troubles California doctors who have made a specialty of monitoring their patients’ cannabis use, as well as some scientists who are studying the basic nature of the cannabinoid system. Jeffrey Hergenrather, MD, of Sebastopol — one of the few clinicians to attend the ICRS meeting, which was held in Paestum, Italy, in late June — says “We are only now be becoming aware of the modulating effects the cannabinoids have on the body and mind. The consequences of interfering with the cannabinoid receptor system have not been evaluated in normal human physiology.”

Le Fur and other Sanofi researchers were asked how a drug could block the CB1 receptor system without adversely affecting mood, sleep, pain relief, and other CB1–mediated aspects of well–being. The answers were vague — other neurotransmitters may play compensatory roles. We were told that no pattern of adverse effects had been observed during the clinical trials, and that such effects are probably so rare that they won’t be detectable until Rimonabant has been used by millions of people over a period of years.

The developer of another antagonist drug, a rival of Sanofi’s, claimed that Rimonabant induced “food aversion” in five percent of the test subjects. Le Fur responded that obesity was such a widespread and serious health problem that five percent seems like an acceptable rate of anorexia. Other criticisms and misgivings were only whispered. A multiple sclerosis specialist told of a case in which Rimonabant apparently caused an immediate, extreme exacerbation. A physician wondered — since the body’s own cannabinoids have neuroprotectant and anti–oxidant functions — if Rimonabant users would be at increased risk for stroke and cancer. But the negative remarks were anecdotal or speculative; the positive data belonged to Sanofi.

Le Fur and two colleagues accepted the ICRS’s 2004 achievement award on behalf of their company. It was presented by Mechoulam, the grand old man of the field. who observed that Sanofi had shown great foresight in developing a weight–loss drug in the late 1990s, because it has since swallowed up two much larger drug companies, Synthelabo and Aventis.

From the perspective of the scientists in the ICRS — mainly employees of universities or pharmaceutical companies who get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse– it’s a win–win–win to honor Sanofi for developing CB–receptor antagonists as “new therapeutic drugs.” NIDA is eager to sponsor research involving cannabinoid antagonists. A lot will be learned about the cannabinoid system, its mechanism of action, etc. And a therapeutic effect is a therapeutic effect, whether it’s produced by activating or blocking the cannabinoid receptors.

But common sense and a few cautious clinicians say DANGER DANGER DANGER. CB1 receptors are concentrated in the cerebellum and the basal ganglia (responsible for motor control, which may help explain why marijuana eases muscle spasticity in disorders like multiple sclerosis), the hippocampus (responsible for storage of short–term memory), and the limbic system (emotional control).

Although other neurotransmitters may play compensatory roles when the cannabinoid receptors are blocked, the longterm impacts will not be known until years after Sanofi gets approval to market Rimonabant to the slimness–loving masses. Before marketing commences, says Hergenrather, “It would be ethical to design longitudinal studies to assess the consequences of interfering with the cannabinoid system.”

Other uses for cannabinoid–antagonist drugs are being studied with active encouragement from NIDA. Walter Fratta of the University of Cagliari gave a paper in Paestum proposing antagonists “as therapeutic agents to prevent relapse to heroin abuse.” Carl Lupica of NIDA discussed Rimonabant as a “potential treatment” for food, alcohol and nicotine cravings. “It is also clear that marijuana craving may be successfully treated by this drug,” according to Lupica.

Alas, this was supposed to be the year that G.W. Pharmaceuticals won the ICRS achievement award. G.W. is the British firm that in 1998 got government approval to develop and test an extract of the cannabis plant which it formulated as an oral spray and dubbed “Sativex.” Clinical trials of Sativex as a treatment for neuropathic pain, multiple sclerosis and other conditions were conducted and favorable results reported to the regulators. Bayer agreed to market Sativex in Europe when the approval came through. G.W. generously made Sativex and other plant extracts with different cannabinoid contents available to investigators who previously could experiment only with NIDA–weed or synthetics.

But the marketing approval that Guy said he expected by the end of 2003, and then by spring ’04, has yet to be granted. So he and his associates had to walk a bit of a tightrope in Paestum, reassuring all concerned that Sativex certainly will get approved, while not risking any more misstatements about when.

Guy cited favorable data produced in recent trials of Sativex as a treatment for pain in rheumatoid arthritis and spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Unfortunately, in the U.K. as in the U.S., favorable trial results can count for less than the establishment connections of the doctors who conduct them. And so the British regulatory authorities continue to ponder G.W.’s dossier, while the banquet at this year’s ICRS meeting was hosted by Sanofi.


Fred Gardner is the managing editor of O’Shaughnessy’s. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]