2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111	HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP
advanced	CURRENT ISSUE	ARCHIVES	JASN Express	ONLINE SUBMISSION

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: ASN.2005020152v1 16/12/3742    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wikström, B. Articles by Ueno, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wikström, B. Articles by Ueno, Y. Related Collections Related Article

-Opioid System in Uremic Pruritus: Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Studies

Björn Wikström^*, Ryszard Gellert, Søren D. Ladefoged, Yasuaki Danda, Masahiko Akai, Kaoru Ide, Midori Ogasawara, Yoshiharu Kawashima, Koki Ueno, Akio Mori and Yuji Ueno

^* Department of Nephrology, Dialysis Unit, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Health Care, Institute of Social Medicine, Warsaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Nephrology, Section 5101, Rigshopspitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; and Clinical Development Center, Toray Industries, Inc., Chiba, Japan

Address correspondence to: Dr. Yuji Ueno, Clinical Development Center, Toray Industries Inc., 8-1, Mihama 1-chome, Urayasu, Chiba 279-8555, Japan. Phone: +81-47-350-6754; Fax: +81-47-350-6769; E-mail: yuji_ueno{at}nts.toray.co.jp

Received for publication February 8, 2005. Accepted for publication September 7, 2005.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Uremic pruritus is a very common and frustrating condition for both patients and clinicians because no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective in relieving the itch. In this report, nalfurafine, a new -opioid receptor agonist, was used to treat uremic pruritus in patients who were undergoing routine hemodialysis. Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies enrolled 144 patients with uremic pruritus to postdialysis intravenous treatment with either nalfurafine or placebo for 2 to 4 wk. A meta-analysis approach was used to assess the efficacy of nalfurafine. Statistically significant reductions in worst itching (P = 0.0212), itching intensity (P = 0.0410), and sleep disturbances (P = 0.0003) were noted in the nalfurafine group as compared with placebo. Improvements in itching (P = 0.0025) and excoriations (P = 0.0060) were noted for the nalfurafine-treated patients. Nalfurafine showed similar types and incidences of drug-related adverse events as did placebo. Nalfurafine was shown to be an effective and safe compound for use in this severely ill patient population.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Uremic pruritus has a major impact on the quality of life in patients who already have a compromised lifestyle (1–5). It is, of itself, not a life-threatening condition; however, it is known to contribute to an increase in morbidity (6) and mortality (7) of uremic patients. The only current definitive treatment for uremic pruritus is successful renal transplantation (8). Increasing the dialysis dose as well as implementing other therapeutic measures to lessen the symptoms, some as extraordinary as acupressure, (9) have provided only limited effectiveness in dialysis patients.

Stimulation of the µ-opioid receptor in the brain and/or peripheral nerve endings by its agonists, such as morphine, can result in itching (10–12). µ-Opioid receptor antagonists can inhibit itching induced by substance P (13). -Opioid stimulation inhibits µ-receptor effects both centrally and peripherally (11). Nalfurafine, a new -opioid receptor agonist, was effective in reducing the scratching behavior induced by an injection of substance P in the mouse model (13,14). From these findings, it was hypothesized that uremic pruritus could be triggered and sustained by the release of substance P (15). This led to the studies in the treatment of uremic pruritus using nalfurafine.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Study Design and Treatments
Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies were performed with the common objective of assessing the efficacy and the safety of nalfurafine, as compared with placebo, in the treatment of uremic pruritus. The inclusion and exclusion criteria and the evaluations, methods of evaluations, and times of evaluations were the same in both studies.

Patients were males and females who were at least 18 yr of age and undergoing routine hemodialysis secondary to ESRD and had severe, uncontrolled pruritus caused only by ESRD. Female patients were not of childbearing potential or were using an acceptable contraceptive method(s). They had normal hepatic function, and any concurrent diseases were stable, were not severe, and would not interfere with interpretations of the study results. All patients completed the "worst itching" visual analogue scale (VAS) at least eight of 14 times during a 1-wk run-in period. Each patient had at least three "worst itching" VAS measurements during the run-in period of 50 mm and an average "worst itching" VAS of 25 mm. Excluded were female patients who were pregnant, were nursing, or wanted to become pregnant; patients whose pruritus occurred only during dialysis; and patients who had participated in a clinical trial or received an experimental drug within 30 d of trial start. Patients with a history of drug/alcohol abuse, allergy to opioids or other drug allergies, or a psychiatric disorder were excluded.

The first study (study 1) was a parallel-group design with the treatment lasting for 4 wk. Seventy-nine patients were randomly assigned in this study, and 74 completed the 4 wk of treatment. Before the run-in period (baseline), all anti-pruritic medications, except for topical neutral agents, were discontinued for at least 7 d. After the run-in period in which it was documented that patients had pruritus that required treatment [itching uncontrolled by current medication(s)/treatment(s)], the patients were randomly assigned to receive nalfurafine 5 µg (n = 26) or placebo (n = 25) thrice weekly by intravenous infusion, immediately after completion of each of their hemodialysis (HD) sessions in 4 wk. A follow-up visit was performed 2 wk after administration of the final dose of study medication.

The second study (study 2) was a crossover design in which patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive for 2 wk an intravenous infusion of either nalfurafine 5 µg or placebo thrice weekly immediately after each of their HD sessions. Before randomization, patients underwent a 1-wk run-in period to determine their eligibility. At the completion of the first treatment period, patients underwent a 3-wk washout period followed by another 1-wk run-in period. Patients then were crossed over to the other study medication for an additional 2 wk of therapy. Thirty-four patients were randomly assigned to this study, and 31 completed the 4 wk of treatment.

The severity of pruritus and the treatment effectiveness were self-evaluated by the patients every 12 h during the run-in period and throughout the studies using a 100-mm VAS to measure the "worst itching" during the previous 12 h as the primary end point. At the left end of the scale (0 mm) was "no itching" and the right end (100 mm) represented "worst itching ever" with the patient making a vertical line between "0" and "100" to denote the severity of itching. Secondary efficacy end points were (1) patient responders as defined by a reduction from run-in of at least 50% in "worst itching" VAS, (2) itching intensity assessed each evening using a five-point categorical scale ranging from 1 (no itching) to 5 (intolerable itching), and (3) ability to sleep during the night assessed each morning using a five-point categorical scale ranging from 1 (no itching) to 5 (cannot sleep because of itching).

In addition, the investigators assessed (1) the itching intensity of the patients by direct questioning of the patients using the same five-point categorical scale used by the patients and compared the efficacy of the study medication using a three-point scale (same, better, worse compared with run-in) performed at the end of each week of treatment and (2) the number of excoriations on the body during run-in and after each 2 wk of therapy and compared these values with those at run-in using a three-point scale (same, better, worse).

Each dose of double-blind study medication in both studies was administered as an intravenous infusion at a rate of 2 ml/min for 5 min using an infusion pump. All doses were administered immediately after conclusion of each HD session.

Ethics
The studies were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origins in the Declaration of Helsinki and its amendment. Both protocols and the representative informed consent forms and patient information sheets underwent review and received approval by the representative ethics committees. All patients were informed and had questions answered by the investigators at each study site before they provided written informed consent. All patients provided their written informed consent before having any study-related procedure performed.

Statistical Analyses
The primary end point for each of the clinical trials was reduction in mean "worst itching" VAS from run-in to the end of week 4 (study 1) and week 2 (study 2). This end point was prespecified before the initiation of either trial. Likewise, the primary end point for the meta-analysis was reduction in mean "worst itching" VAS from run-in to week 2.

All patients who had received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one assessable "worst itching" VAS measurement were included in a FAS data set. With the intention to select comparable data from the two studies, only the data from the nalfurafine 5 µg and the placebo groups were used in these analyses because it allowed pooling of the same dose groups, thus increasing the sample sizes. Using only the data from the first 2 wk of treatment in study 1 and the first 2-wk treatment period in study 2 was considered appropriate because of concerns of the drug carryover effects and regression to the mean. For any missing data, the last observation carried forward approach was used.

The primary end point (worst itching VAS) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. Treatment, study, and run-in values were used as factors in the model. This corresponds to the model used in the individual studies, stratified by study. For the weighted analysis of "worst itching" VAS in study 1 + period 1 study 2 and study 1 + study 2, the DerSimonian-Laird method (16,17), a random-effects model, was used. The DerSimonian estimates were equal to ordinary fixed-effects model estimates because the heterogeneity parameter ² was found to be zero.

For the secondary efficacy variables, patients’ assessment of itching intensity and sleep disturbances were analyzed using analysis of covariance models, with treatment, study, and run-in value as factors. For analysis purposes, these variables were re-categorized as follows: 1, nondisturbing itching (originally recorded as "0, no itching" or "1, tolerable without scratching"), and 0, disturbing itching (originally recorded as categories 2 through 5 above), or as 1, sound sleep (originally recorded as "0, no itching" or "1, sound sleep with slight itch on retiring"), and 0, sleep disturbed (originally recorded as categories 2 through 5 above).

The sum of the re-categorized itching intensity or sleep disturbance variables was used to estimate the number of days with nondisturbing itching or to estimate the number of nights with sound sleep within a study week, respectively. The change from run-in was used for hypothesis testing.

Investigators’ assessments of improvement in itching and excoriation and the proportion of responders in each treatment group were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified for study (with modified ridit scores). An overall comparison was performed using Fisher exact test.

Two-sided P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Statistical calculations were performed with SAS software (version 8.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Efficacy
Using the complete study 1 + study 2 data sets, 86 patients were treated with nalfurafine, and 58 patients received placebo. In study 1, 26 patients were randomly assigned to nalfurafine 5 µg, and 25 received with placebo. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to nalfurafine 5 µg and 18 received placebo in the first period of study 2. A total of 42 patients received nalfurafine 5 µg as the first medication for 2 wk, and 43 patients started with placebo in the study 1 + period 1 study 2 analysis. All demographic and clinical characteristics including the durations of renal disease, dialysis, and pruritus in each study were comparable.

Evaluation of the mean "worst itching" VAS from the study 1 + period 1 study 2 analysis demonstrated that nalfurafine reduced the mean "worst itching" VAS from run-in statistically significantly more than placebo (weighted mean difference 9.53 mm; 95% confidence interval 1.42 to 17.64 mm; P = 0.0212; Figure 1). This is similar to the results from the individual studies (Tables 1 and 2). Using data from both treatment periods in the crossover study as a sensitivity analysis, study 1 + study 2, the reduction of the mean "worst itching" VAS also reached statistical significance (weighted mean difference 7.29 mm; 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 14.4 mm; P = 0.0447; Figure 1).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Figure 1. "Worst itching" visual analog scale; 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference.

For patients’ assessment, both number of days with nondisturbing itching and number of nights with sound sleep were statistically significantly different between groups at week 2, in favor of nalfurafine (P = 0.0410 and P = 0.0003, respectively; Table 3). The number of days with nondisturbing itching in the nalfurafine group improved from 0.6 d/wk at the run-in period to 2.2 and 2.8 d at week 1 and week 2, respectively. Also, the number of nights with sound sleep in the nalfurafine group improved from 1.7 nights/wk at the run-in period to 3.4 and 4.3 nights at week 1 and week 2, respectively.

Safety
Evaluation of the safety profiles from these two studies assisted in assessment of the clinical utility of nalfurafine. In study 1, the incidence of drug-related adverse events (ADR), as judged by the investigators, was similar between nalfurafine 5 µg and placebo groups: 17 (65%) of 26 and 13 (52%) of 25, respectively. The most common ADR associated with nalfurafine were headache and nausea in three patients each and insomnia, vertigo, and vomiting in two patients each. With the exception of one case each of severe headache and insomnia, all of these ADR were mild to moderate in intensity and resolved. Only one patient, who had moderate nausea and vomiting, had therapy discontinued. Two (8%) patients in the nalfurafine 5 µg group and six (24%) patients in the placebo group reported at least one serious adverse event (SAE), but none of the SAE was considered to be drug related.

In study 2, the incidence of ADR was similar between the nalfurafine 5 µg and placebo groups: 2 (13%) of 16 and 2 (11%) of 18 patients, respectively. The most common ADR associated with nalfurafine were vertigo (one patient) and elevations of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine transaminase (one patient). All of these ADR were mild and resolved, and treatment was not discontinued. Three patients who were administered nalfurafine had an SAE and three on placebo recorded an SAE, but none of the SAE was considered to be drug related. In addition, there was no difference of withdrawal rates between the active treatment groups and placebo groups in both studies.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
To date, no treatments have demonstrated efficacy for uremic pruritus in a rigorously designed (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled) and carried out clinical study. On the basis of the data presented, it seems that nalfurafine, a -opioid receptor agonist, could be the first agent to have demonstrated a statistically significant efficacy over placebo for this condition. Efficacy (using the "worst itching" VAS) was confirmed in a recent study (data not shown) that used nalfurafine in patients who had uremic pruritus and were undergoing routine hemodialysis.

This meta-analysis should be regarded as a complement to the analyses of the pivotal study 1 and study 2, because the results were consistent for all analyses (Figure 1). In this very disturbing condition, an increase of attention and the sensation of being treated could be associated with subjective improvement (the Bergstrom effect [18]). Even so, the observed strong placebo effect was overridden by nalfurafine, which demonstrates the potent therapeutic effect of this medication.

That nalfurafine can reduce the itching associated with uremic pruritus suggests that opioid receptors may play an important role in the generation and maintenance of itching in this patient population. µ-Opioid receptor agonists elicit itching from their central nervous system actions (13,19), and this activity may be due to disinhibition of the central itch response that occurs as a result of their antinociceptive action (20). -Agonists have been shown to block the itching response of morphine through a central effect (13,21) while maintaining or enhancing morphine-induced antinociception. This anti-pruritic effect may be due to a direct effect in one or more areas of the brain and/or a positive feedback from the skin at the level of the spinal cord.

The itching of uremic pruritus may be caused by another pruritogen, substance P. This chemical has been shown to induce scratching in mice, with and without mast cells (14). Antihistamines were not effective in relieving the scratching in either setting. These findings suggest that substance P can be a possible cause of antihistamine-resistant pruritus. Nalfurafine has been shown to inhibit scratching in this model. This effect was reversed when nor-binaltorphimine, a specific -receptor antagonist, was administered, demonstrating that the anti-pruritic effect of nalfurafine was mediated via the -receptor (13,14).

Kumagai et al. (22) showed that the itch of uremic pruritus may be related to an imbalance of endogenous opioids. In their work, hemodialysis patients had increased ratios of -endorphin/dynorphin A in serum, as compared with healthy volunteers, and this ratio increased with the severity of itching. Because -endorphin is a µ-receptor agonist and dynorphin A is a -receptor agonist, it is suggestive that this imbalance can result in overactivity of the µ-opioid receptor and induce pruritus. In support of this imbalance hypothesis, Odou et al. (23) demonstrated a correlation between pruritus intensity and naltrexone sensitivity in patients with uremic pruritus.

An explanation for the antagonistic actions of the µ- and -opioid systems is that although both receptors mediate their action in the same cellular manner, they are located in different types of neurons with direct connections to each other to elicit their inhibitory/excitatory interactions (24). Because these different receptors interact and the µ-receptor opioid system seems to play a major role in the pathophysiology of uremic pruritus, it seems reasonable that a selective -agonist, such as nalfurafine, would demonstrate effectiveness in the treatment of central itching, especially uremic pruritus.

Evaluation of the adverse events from these two trials demonstrates nalfurafine to be well tolerated in the clinical arena. The main events seem to be mediated by the central nervous system (headache, vertigo, and insomnia) and the gastrointestinal system (nausea and vomiting). As all of these adverse events were transient and resolved, this indicates that nalfurafine is a safe agent. Neither addiction nor symptoms of withdrawal were noted in these patients and has been confirmed with studies in animals. Nalfurafine seems to be both an effective and a safe agent to be used in the treatment of uremic pruritus in ESRD patients who are undergoing routine hemodialysis.

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank all of the investigators, nurses, and pharmacists at the participating institutions and the patients who gave consent for these studies. We also thank Dr. William Cady, who provided advice about manuscript preparation; and Yukari Ozaki, Tomoko Nakada, and Harumi Hirota, who provided clerical support.

The following investigators contributed to these studies. Study 1: Sweden: Akademiska Sjukhuset i Uppsala (Dr. Torbjörn Linde, Dr. Hans Furuland), Karolinska Sjukhuset (Dr. Britta Hylander), Sophiahemmet (Dr. Ingela Fehrman-Ekholm, Dr. David Dunge), Huddinge Sjukhus, Huddinge (Dr. Peter Baràny), Huddinge Sjukhus, Söder (Dr. Alberto Gutierrez), Vrinnevi Sjukhus (Dr. Sven-Ingmar Deurell), Universitetssjukhuset i Linköping (Dr. Martin Magnusson), Universitetssjukhuset MAS (Dr. Gunnar Sterner), Centralsjukhuset i Karlstad (Dr. Lars Weiss), Universitetssjukhuset i Örebro (Dr. Martin Tidman), Länssjukhuset NÄL (Dr. Henrik Mulec, Dr. Kerstin Nättorp), Borås Lasarett (Dr. Sven-Aage Johnsen), Carlanderska Sjukhuset (Dr. Gert Jensen, Dr. Katarina Gisslén); Denmark: Rigshospitalet i Copenhagen (Dr. Preben Sörensen), Herlev Sygehus (Dr. Arne Höj Nielsen), Centralsygehuset i Holbaeck (Dr. Karsten Sölling, Dr. Niels Lökkegaard), Hillerød Sygehus (Dr. Henrik Daugaard, Dr. Esben Gade-Rasmussen), Amtssygehus i Roskilde (Dr. Knud Rasmussen), Aalborg Sygehus Syd (Dr. Jakob Sölling, Dr. Georg Dimcevski); Norway: Regionssykehuset i Trondheim (Dr. Cecilia Montgomery-Öien); Finland: Kirurgsjukhuset i Helsinki (Dr. Eero Honkanen), Tampere University Hospital (Dr. Jukka Mustonen, Dr. Ilpo Ala-Houhala). Study 2: Poland: Szpital Praski (Dr. Janusz Puka); Szpital ZOZ, Milanówek (Dr. Marek Stopinski); Szpital ZOZ, Woomin (Dr. Stanislaw Niemczyk); Szpital Wojewódzki, Ciechanów (Dr. Dorota Daniewska); Szpital Rejonowy, Maków Maz (Dr. Janusz Grochowski); Szpital Wojewódzki, Radom (Dr. Antoni Sokalski); Szpital Wojewódzki, Wloclawek (Dr. Janusz Ostrowski); Szpital Wojewódzki, Plock (Dr. Marek Switalski).

	Footnotes

 
Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Gilchrest BA, Stern RS, Steinman TI, Brown RS, Arndt KA, Anderson WW: Clinical features of pruritus among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Arch Dermatol 118: 154–156, 1982[Abstract]
2. Evans RW, Manninen DL, Garrison LP Jr, Hart LG, Blagg CR, Gutman RA, Hull AR, Lowrie EG: The quality of life of patients with end-stage renal disease. N Engl J Med 312: 553–559, 1985[Abstract]
3. Balaskas EV, Oreopoulos DG: Uremic pruritus. Dial Transplant 21: 192–244, 1992
4. Robertson KE, Mueller BA: Uremic pruritus. Am J Health Syst Pharm 53: 2159–2170, 1996
5. Goicoechea M, de Sequera P, Ochando A, Andrea C, Caramelo C: Uremic pruritus: An unresolved problem in hemodialysis patients. Nephron 82: 73–74, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Barrett BJ, Vavasour HM, Major A, Parfrey PS: Clinical and psychological correlates of somatic symptoms in patients on dialysis. Nephron 55: 10–15, 1990
7. Carmichael AJ, McHugh MI, Martin AM: Renal itch as an indicator of poor outcome. Lancet 337: 1225–1226, 1991
8. Murphy M, Carmichael AJ: Renal itch. Clin Exp Dermatol 25: 103–106, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Jedras M, Bataa O, Gellert R, Ostrowski G, Wojtaszek E, Lange J, Oledzka M: Acupressure in the treatment of uremic pruritus. Dial Transplant 32: 8–10, 2001
10. Yosipovitch G, Greaves MW, Schmelz M: Itch. Lancet 361: 690–694, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Pan ZZ: mu-Opposing actions of the kappa-opioid receptor. Trends Pharmacol Sci 19: 94–98, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Cousins MJ, Mather LE: Intrathecal and epidural administration of opioids. Anesthesiology 61: 276–310, 1984[Medline]
13. Umeuchi H, Togashi Y, Honda T, Nakao K, Okano K, Tanaka T, Nagase H: Involvement of central mu-opioid system in the scratching behavior in mice, and the suppression of it by the activation of kappa-opioid system. Eur J Pharmacol 477: 29–35, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Togashi Y, Umeuchi H, Okano K, Ando N, Yoshizawa Y, Honda T, Kawamura K, Endoh T, Utsumi J, Kamei J, Tanaka T, Nagase H: Antipruritic activity of the kappa-opioid receptor agonist, TRK-820. Eur J Pharmacol 435: 259–264, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Cho YL, Liu HN, Huang TP, Tarng DC: Uremic pruritus: Roles of parathyroid hormone and substance P. J Am Acad Dermatol 36: 538–543, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Whitehead A, Whitehead J: A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 10: 1665–1677, 1991[Medline]
17. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7: 177–188, 1986[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Bergstrom J, Alvestrand A, Bucht H, Gutierrez A: Progression of chronic renal failure in man is retarded with more frequent clinical follow-ups and better blood pressure control. Clin Nephrol 25: 1–6, 1986[Medline]
19. Schmelz M: A neural pathway for itch. Nat Neurosci 4: 9–10, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Schmelz M: Itch—Mediators and mechanisms. J Dermatol Sci 28: 91–96, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Ko MCH, Lee H, Song MS, Sobczyk-Kojiro K, Mosberg HI, Kishioka S, Woods JH, Naughton NN: Activation of kappa-opioid receptors inhibits pruritus evoked by subcutaneous or intrathecal administration of morphine in monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 305: 173–179, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Kumagai H, Saruta T, Matsukawa S, Utsumi J: Prospects for a novel kappa-opioid receptor agonist, TRK-820, in uremic pruritis. In: Itch, Basic Mechanisms and Therapy, edited by Yosipovitch G, Greaves MW, Fleischer Jr AB, McGlone F, New York, Marcel Dekker Inc, 2004, pp 279–286
23. Odou P, Azar R, Luyckx M, Brunet C, Dine T: A hypothesis for endogenous opioid peptides in uraemic pruritus: Role of enkephalin. Nephrol Dial Transplant 16: 1953–1954, 2001[Free Full Text]
24. Pan ZZ, Tershner SA, Fields HL: Cellular mechanism for anti-analgesic action of agonists of the kappa-opioid receptor. Nature 389: 382–385, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Wang, Y. Chen, W. Xu, D. Y.W. Lee, Z. Ma, S. M. Rawls, A. Cowan, and L.-Y. Liu-Chen 2-Methoxymethyl-Salvinorin B Is a Potent {kappa} Opioid Receptor Agonist with Longer Lasting Action in Vivo Than Salvinorin A J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., March 1, 2008; 324(3): 1073 - 1083. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Pisoni, B. Wikstrom, S. J. Elder, T. Akizawa, Y. Asano, M. L. Keen, R. Saran, D. C. Mendelssohn, E. W. Young, and F. K. Port Pruritus in haemodialysis patients: international results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2006; 21(12): 3495 - 3505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: ASN.2005020152v1 16/12/3742    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wikström, B. Articles by Ueno, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wikström, B. Articles by Ueno, Y. Related Collections Related Article