• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

Novel Opioids

Feretile

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
361

Wilson and Pircio, Nature (London) 206, 1151 (1965).

This work is also covered by CA Patent 830475A 'Analgesic cyclobutanes derivative compositions'

What is interesting is that this class is similar to Lednicer's (much more potent) BDPC (and homologues). The above has more rotatable bonds and is not the ideal biosteric minimum. I have no idea if adding a p-Br to the benzylamine would increase affinity, but it seems quite likely. With this class, if one can obtain the precursor, it is synthetically simple.

There are many workers who had limited funding for the research of opioids. Until the 1970s nobody really understood what requirements a mu agonist required, but now there are papers with training-sets & 3D QSAR.
 

Bola V. Shetty in US Patent 4210749 'Substituted 1,2,4,5-tetrahydro-3H,3 benzazepines'.

It's interesting to see the piperizine moiety turning up again. Elements of phenapromide. The methoxy analogue is orally active and x2 pentazocine, the phenol (O-desmethyl) analogue was found to be x8 pentazocine but was not orally active.
 

A team at Degussa developed EP0120465B1 'N-phenyl-n'-cycloalkylalkanoylpiperazines and process for their preparation'. While this could be seen as a bioisostere of phenoperidine, it's also somewhat similar to buccinazine.

It's interesting how researchers tend to find a fragment (piperzines in all above) and FOCUS on it. Presumably the workers did not have access to 3DQSAR data. Again, their is a continuing belief that phenolic & non-phenolic opioids bind at a different site in spite of the fact that Bentley proved that removing the 3-OH of his Diel-Alders abducts did reduce potency, but not eliminate it.
 
Last edited:

S Wilkinson and P Cuatrecases, Biochem Bwphys Res Commun 74, 1311 (1977), M C
Fournie-Zaluski, R Pednsot, G Gacel, J P Swerts, B P Roques, and J C Schwartz,
Biochem Biophys Res Commun 91, 130 (1979)

The above is a rigid analogue of dextropropoxythene. Useful in a trial-set. It's potency is stated as being x5 morphine. There are a few other tetrahydronapthalene derived opioids such as desocine although most of them are less potent.
 

Sandoz provide a wonderful QSAR for this remarkable class of opioid. The compound in the image is around x50 morphine in potency.
B S Huegi, A M Ebnother, E Rissi, F Gadient, D Hauser, D Roemer, R C Hill, H H Buescher, and T J Petcher, J Med Chem 26, 42 (1983)

It seems likely that replacing the 2-MeO benzene with a 2-thiophene will be at least as potent and slightly simpler from a synthetic perspective. I should add that that even though it's potent, it would appear to be too synthetically complex for it's revelation to offer RC vendors a new class of product.

I've taken quite an interest in the question 'what is the most potent opioid that can be produced in 1 step from commercially available precursors'. I should separate the terms 'commercial precursor' and 'pharmaceutical intermediate'. While norlevorphanol would be a wonderful item to possess, it's very expensive and IF it were produced, it would not take long for the supplier to be identified and supply pinched. I think fentanyl derivatives are still the most common RC opioid because none if it's precursors are specifically pharmaceutical intermediates.

Oh, and while I would need to find an appropriate example, I think about x60M is possible in 1 step using 3 common materials. Before that, I think U-47700 was the most potent example.
 
I have a series of pdfs called annual reports in medicinal chemistry of which some feature rather rare structures of opioids… I can share it when I’m out of the hospital.
 
The Annual Reports on Medicinal Chemistry are an EXCELLENT resource. If you have the .PDF files, I would certainly like to read them again. I had 1969-1989 as the original paper editions but donated them to the university I attended.

Very useful to see what does not work and why. A few were perfectly fine but arrived at the wrong time or arrived at the same time as another medicine who who had a successful marketing team behind it.
 

I hope it works, all the pdf I have.

It appears to be the opiates section - did you harvest 20 years of opiate sections???

It's a great help, but if possible, the whole of each would be ideal - there was a lot of work on other classes.... but here is me moaning. I am truly grateful. Do you have the R Lenz & Casy books on opioids? People have uploaded them and they are on the site somewhere. If not, open a Protonmail account & PM me you address and I will sent them to you.

But as we say ' good work fella!' and I hope you are recovering.
 
BTW the Swiss compound highlights that the methyl side-chain increases affinity, and o-Cl on the amide-aromatic increases activity but most importantly, that an N-ethyl moiety increases affinity but that the exact position of the amide is not a vital as one might think. After all, the compounds developed by Jacob Szmuszkovicz (U-47700 and so on) contain an amide but the aromatic does not bind with it directly.

While there are a million guesses, I note that he used an N-methyl on his amide whereas the Swiss found and N-ethyl to be more potent. I am not sure if Chinese labs have even SEEN the Swiss papers and if so, considered that an N-ethyl may increase activity over N-methyl. Of course, the N-ethyl is not the most potent homologue BY FAR. It would most certainly be interesting in elucidating the QSAR but so far all I have seen is replacing the N,N dimethyl for an N,N diethyl and the 3,4-dichloromoiety replaced by a 3,4-dichloro.... which does not imply intelligent design.

If one overlays U-47700 with some related, high-potency opioids (the one I am thinking of is x23M) then I can readily see something several times more potent for the sake of changing one very cheap precursor for another very cheap precursor.
 

Long ago I was looking at ciramadol in Reaxys. There was a reference to a homologue in which the m-OH was replaced by a p-Cl. Sadly the reference was unavailable. Now, as we know, it is not possible to produce antagonistic activity in an opioid without a phenol or bioisostere thereof. In retrospect, the p-Cl homologue CAN only have agonist activity (presuming it is a mu ligand. From compounds such as BDPC, Brophene and such, it's quite likely that a p-Me will also work BUT the example had a -Cl. I would be very surprised if other (pseudo)halogens would substitute.

The benzylamine moiety is quite common in opioids and the N: and ⭕ lone-pairs interact which is hypothesized to be important to bonding. The BEST example is the 6-MeO & beta -OH moiety found in etorphine & related compounds. In the book Opiates (R.Lenz et al), examples of the Bentley compounds lacking the 6-OCH3 absent were tested and potency was reduced from x30o0 to x125 so that N<-->O interaction is important.

Even in the phenylpiperidine opioids, tests show that the piperidine ring forms the boat conformation and the N: <--> ⭕ interaction is important, I think that it is the reason that while pethidine is 0.7x M while MPPP is x7 M.

Opioids represent the most complex and subtle class of compound. 5 distinct key moieties have been identified using large training-sets but the interaction of lone-pairs has not been completely identified. After all, the alkene moiety found in allylprodine, 14-cinnamyloxycodone & 14-allyloxycodeine are proven to significantly increase activity but their are just two few to generate a training set.

While I haven't posted it, I feel certain that their are simple phenoperidine derivatives (3-allyl phenoperidine for a start) that would be highly potent. If the 3 chiral centres could be resolved, a compound some x240 M would seem very likely. A simple alternative would be 3,3-dimethylphenoperidine. I noted that 3,3-dimethyl prodine was as potent as trans 3-methyl prodine. I guess that IF prodine had ever been used medically, the 3,3-dimethyl derivative would have been chosen because the gamma -OJ can be synthesized optically pure and so only 2 enantiomers would be produced..... and in the spirit of patents everywhere, first the mixture of isomers would have been marketed, and THEN the single isomer.
 
I have been fascinated by the various etonnitazone homologues sold by various dubious Chinese RC vendors. What I find strange is that in 1961 a German team synthesized about 60 homologues and analogues based on intelligent design. It was hardly a stretch to appreciate that a -OH (or -OCH3) on the benzyl spacer overlaid the 6 position of phenanthracene opioids such as etorphine. Now, the problem with the spacer is that it was not stable, one could not just place an -OH (or -OCH3) onto a side-chain because under physiological conditions., it would rapidly racemise. So, using a simple (but I have to say elegant) solution, they introduced a carboxamide moiety. Now, the catrboxamide has a number of advantages, BOTH isomers are equally potent, addition does not significantly lower LogP and being much more stable (and not attracting enzymes that attack the compound), it does not alter the duration of action nor the metabolism of the medicine.

The result was that a compound estimated to be x60 morphine orally was increased to an activity some x150 morphine.

It should be added that whenever a phenol or secondary hydroxyl moiety is encountered, they can almost always be substituted by a carboxamide. The cocaine medication 8CAC used a 3-carboxyamide moiety to significantly increase it's duration of action. As you may know, in the 1970s it was believed that opiate antagonists would blockade the positive effects of cocaine. They did not.

Still, if the 3-phenol of morphine is replaced by a carboxamide, the resulting compound has a duration of action of around 10 hours. The paper on 8CAC even demonstrated a 2-step synthesis for converting a phenol into a carboxamide but the reagents needed to produced the intermediate -F compound are quite unfriendly.

On a personal note, it's possible to replace both the phenol and the ketone moieties of ketobemidone to produce a novel a potent mu agonists. It does not lend itself to large-scale production but it was an interesting experiment.

I post this in the hope that it spurs others into further research.

BTW I need to do some more work but it would appear that an opioid some x60 morphine can be produced from common, commercially available compounds in 1 step using a name reaction (Mannich Condensation). While it's kind of exciting.... anything x60 M would no doubt end up being sold as a powder and end up killing peopl.e

I am very strongly in favour of opioids <10x OR in the form of sublingual tablets (with maybe 2mg in each) because people can use them orally, sublingually, nasally or (for those intent on death) IV. Sadly, no RC vendor cares about their customers sufficiently to go to such efforts. It's a shame.


 
It's still LOADS more than I have,

BTW take a look at the opioid nortilidine and K. The 1 fact you lack is that the N: & ⭕ (lone pairs) interact which is why nortilidine has NMDA properties. Oh, and in a patent I saw, m-MeO nortilidine was produced. So opioids & NMDA antagonists are CLOSE.

Oh, and like K, the isomer of nortilidine that is not an opioid is a DRI.......


Nortilidine comes as a pair of enantiomers (chral pair) so one is mu/NMDA & the other is DRI....... ok so it's only x2 M in potency BUT it's very euphoric.
 
Never had nortilidine which supposedly made its rounds some years ago but I always found tilidine a somewhat weaker version of methadone. It’s nice but nothing special imo, plain old codeine is way nicer.
 
I have read that some users (those with no tolerance) LOVE tramadol and I think nortilidine sold because those who had developed tolerance could relive that experience.
There is a very unusual paper in which the ester of tilidine was reversed, just as the ester of pethidine (Demeraol) can be reversed to MPPP (desmethylprodine). I don't know the potency of this tilidine analogue but MPPP is x10 pethidine in potency.

I would love to read your personal experiences with tilidine as I have carried out some studies that suggest that their is a derivative with the same subjective effects but which is subjectively much more potent.

https://ibb.co/9V5dHg0

The methylene bridge ensures that the cyclohexane adopts a boat conformation. The ester function is reversed as having the ⭕ close to the cycloalkyl increased affinity.

I should add that this is not just a guess, it was noted that some effects caused by fencamfamine could be reversed by naloxone and camfentamine was noted to have more potent opioid activity. One is tempted to add a m-OH but in almost all cases, one enantiomer is an agonist, the other an antagonist.

Of course, their is a lot of space to add futher structural features but I cannot think of any!
 

The above compound is listed as x450 pethidine. Research on the relavent compounds suggest that the QSAR indicated that the 3-methyl equates to the 4 position of the 4 position of fentanyl derivatives thus -CH3OCH3 (methoxymethyl) increases potency by a factor of 4 (as seen in sufentanil, the methylcarboxylate x25 (as seen in carfentanil) and so on.

While the precursors are surprisingly available, they are costly, the chemistry demanding and the yields low. The reason I am posting this series is so that people can build a training set.
 

This was found in 'The Annual Report in Medicinal Chemistry' and was assigned a potency of x120 morphine ALTHOUGH the length of the chain connecting the pendant aromatic suggests that neuroleptic properties may be present.
 
Top