A Current Biology study showed that restoring mu opioid receptor signaling in a small brainstem region normalized nerve-injury-induced hypersensitivity in mice. The finding identifies a potentially valuable drug target—but not a treatment ready for people.
Key Takeaways
- A peer-reviewed Current Biology study found that mu opioid receptors in the locus coeruleus—a small brainstem structure—help regulate thermal and mechanical sensitivity after nerve injury in mice (Kuo et al., 2026).
- Inhibiting locus coeruleus activity reduced hypersensitivity four weeks after nerve injury but not at one week, indicating that the circuit’s contribution changed as the injury persisted.
- Mu opioid receptor deletion produced opposing effects in different pathways. Removing the receptor from locus coeruleus neurons projecting to the medial prefrontal cortex increased sensitivity, whereas removing it from neurons projecting to the spinal cord decreased sensitivity.
- In mice genetically deficient in MORs in norepinephrine-producing neurons, expression of human OPRM1 in the locus coeruleus reversed nerve-injury-associated changes in the thermal and mechanical withdrawal measures examined in the study. The rescue was not projection-specific, so it did not identify the precise pathway responsible for the effect.
- This was not a clinical treatment. The investigators measured evoked withdrawal responses in genetically modified mice using optogenetics, viral delivery, and receptor manipulation. They did not demonstrate relief of human chronic pain or elimination of opioid-related risks.
- For drug development, the findings provide preclinical biological and circuit-level validation—not a drug candidate. Translation would require confirmation in humans and a practical way to influence the beneficial circuit without disrupting other locus coeruleus or mu opioid receptor functions.
A Promising Discovery With Important Limits
Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine have identified a mu opioid receptor–dependent mechanism that regulates a pain-promoting brainstem circuit in mice.
The finding has been described as a biological “brake” capable of shutting off chronic pain. That metaphor captures the study’s promise but not its boundaries.
The researchers did not develop a new pain medication or test a treatment in people. They used genetic manipulation, optogenetics, viral delivery, and a mouse model of nerve injury to determine how mu opioid receptors, or MORs, regulate different pathways emerging from the locus coeruleus (Kuo et al., 2026).
The most consequential finding was not simply that an opioid-sensitive mechanism reduced hypersensitivity. It was that the same receptor produced different—and sometimes opposing—behavioral effects depending on which neural pathway contained it.
That circuit specificity could eventually inform the development of more selective analgesics. It is also the principal reason translating the discovery into a practical treatment will be difficult.
Study at a Glance
- Study: “Mu opioid receptors gate the locus coeruleus pain generator”
- Journal: Current Biology
- Published online: August 17, 2026
- Research model: Genetically modified mice with and without spared nerve injury
- Main finding: Mu opioid receptor signaling regulated nociceptive sensitivity differently across distinct locus coeruleus pathways
- Clinical status: Preclinical; no human treatment was tested
- Funding: Public and philanthropic sources
- Conflicts of interest: The authors declared none
- Original paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2026.07.048
Mu opioid receptors affected hypersensitivity differently depending on which locus coeruleus pathway contained them. The findings came from mice, and no treatment was developed or tested in humans.
Why a “Pain Brake” Is an Incomplete Description
The locus coeruleus, or LC, is a small nucleus in the brainstem and the principal source of norepinephrine in the central nervous system. It contributes to arousal, attention, stress responses, and pain modulation.
The LC is not a single-purpose pain switch. Some LC neurons project downward to the spinal cord, where norepinephrine can inhibit nociceptive transmission. Others project upward to regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex and can facilitate pain-related processing under certain conditions. These partly distinct modules can therefore produce different—and sometimes opposing—effects (Castejón España et al., 2024; Hirschberg et al., 2017; Taylor & Westlund, 2017).
Kuo and colleagues found that MOR signaling follows this circuit-dependent organization. Endogenous signaling through the receptor restrained one pain-promoting LC pathway, but MOR deletion did not produce the same behavioral result in every projection containing the receptor (Kuo et al., 2026).
This distinction matters for drug development. A conventional medicine circulating throughout the body generally cannot distinguish identical receptors according to the destination of the neurons carrying them. Achieving useful selectivity may require exploiting differences in receptor combinations, cellular signaling, delivery, or circuit accessibility.
What the Researchers Actually Did
Inhibiting the Locus Coeruleus Raised Withdrawal Thresholds
The investigators used optogenetics, a technique that makes selected neurons responsive to light. In otherwise uninjured mice, optogenetic inhibition of LC neurons increased the heat or mechanical force required to trigger paw withdrawal. The researchers interpreted this as antinociception: reduced processing or behavioral expression of potentially harmful stimulation.
Because reduced movement could falsely resemble diminished sensitivity, they also assessed locomotion. LC inhibition did not reduce locomotion under the real-time place-preference protocol, making a general reduction in movement less likely to explain the result (Kuo et al., 2026).
The result suggested that ongoing LC activity contributes to the withdrawal responses measured in these thermal and mechanical assays.
The Effect Changed With Time After Nerve Injury
The researchers then used spared nerve injury, a widely employed mouse model of neuropathic hypersensitivity.
At one week after injury, inhibiting the LC did not reverse hypersensitivity in the injured paw. At four weeks, it did. This supports the interpretation that persistent nerve injury altered the LC’s functional contribution as pain-related neuroplasticity developed (Kuo et al., 2026).
The experiment does not establish a universal biological boundary between acute and chronic pain. It shows that the contribution of this circuit differed between two time points in one mouse model.
Removing Mu Opioid Receptors Increased Sensitivity
MORs mediate many effects of morphine, fentanyl, and the body’s endogenous opioid peptides. They are abundant in the LC, where their activation strongly inhibits neuronal firing.
Kuo and colleagues conditionally deleted Oprm1, the mouse gene encoding MOR, from norepinephrine-producing neurons. The mice exhibited lower thermal and mechanical withdrawal thresholds, supporting a role for endogenous MOR-mediated inhibition in regulating these responses (Kuo et al., 2026).
This broad deletion was not exclusive to the LC; it also affected other norepinephrine-producing cells. Because the deletion was present during development, compensatory biological changes could have influenced the animals’ adult behavior. The investigators performed additional LC-targeted experiments to strengthen the anatomical and causal interpretation, but these limitations cannot be eliminated completely.
The Same Receptor Had Opposing Roles in Different Circuits
The investigators next deleted MORs according to the destination of the LC neurons carrying them.
Removing MORs from LC neurons projecting to the medial prefrontal cortex made mice more sensitive to thermal and mechanical stimuli. This supports a model in which endogenous MOR signaling normally restrains a pain-promoting LC-to-prefrontal pathway.
Removing MORs from LC neurons projecting to the spinal cord instead made mice less sensitive. Deletion in LC neurons projecting to the dorsal hippocampus produced no clear change in the measured nociceptive behaviors (Kuo et al., 2026).
These results complicate the simplest therapeutic interpretation. Because projection-specific MOR deletion produced opposing behavioral effects, broadly activating LC MORs cannot be assumed to reproduce the beneficial effect associated with one projection. Direct projection-specific activation studies would be needed to establish the net result.
A successful intervention might need to suppress a pain-facilitating LC module while preserving pain-inhibiting circuitry.
Restoring the Receptor Normalized Chronic Hypersensitivity
The receptor-rescue experiment provided additional causal evidence.
The researchers expressed human *OPRM1* bilaterally in the LC of mice lacking MORs in norepinephrine-producing neurons. When the animals were evaluated after spared nerve injury, restoring LC MOR signaling reversed the injury-associated changes in the thermal and mechanical withdrawal measures examined in the study relative to the fluorescent-protein control condition (Kuo et al., 2026).
The result is consistent with endogenous opioid signaling remaining capable of restraining hypersensitivity when functional MOR signaling is restored in the LC.
However, the rescue was not projection-specific. It showed that restoring MOR signaling within the LC could normalize the measured phenotype, but it did not identify the exact LC projection responsible. The authors noted technical barriers to performing projection-specific receptor rescue (Kuo et al., 2026).
The intervention also required direct viral gene delivery into the mouse brain. It is not equivalent to administering a medicine and remains far removed from routine human treatment.
Pain and Nociception Are Not Interchangeable
This distinction is essential when describing animal research.
The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage. Its accompanying notes emphasize that pain and nociception are different phenomena and that pain cannot be inferred solely from activity in sensory neurons (Raja et al., 2020).
Kuo and colleagues primarily measured evoked paw-withdrawal responses to heat and mechanical stimulation. These tests are valuable for detecting altered nociceptive processing and hypersensitivity, but they do not capture the complete experience of chronic pain.
Human chronic pain may include spontaneous burning or electric sensations, impaired function, disrupted sleep, fear, depression, cognitive effects, and reduced quality of life.
The researchers also used a real-time place-preference test to determine whether mice approached a chamber paired with LC inhibition. A positive result could have provided indirect evidence that the intervention relieved an ongoing aversive state. The result was negative.
The authors noted that conditioned place preference may be more sensitive for detecting pain relief and identified this as a limitation (Kuo et al., 2026).
The defensible conclusion is therefore that the study normalized experimentally measured hypersensitivity in mice. It did not show that chronic pain in its full human sense had been switched off.
Does This Point to an Opioid Without Addiction?
Not on the present evidence.
Traditional opioids activate MORs across the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system. Their therapeutic and harmful effects arise from numerous receptor populations and neural circuits.
The new research raises a more selective possibility: scientists might eventually isolate a beneficial MOR effect by influencing a particular LC circuit. But the study did not test respiratory depression, tolerance, physical dependence, withdrawal, reinforcement, or addiction.
It therefore cannot establish that targeting LC-MOR signaling would eliminate the principal risks associated with conventional opioids.
The LC also regulates arousal, attention, stress, autonomic function, and sleep-wake activity. Manipulating it cannot be assumed to be physiologically neutral merely because paw-withdrawal thresholds improve.
The narrower conclusion is that mapping MOR function at the circuit level may help researchers distinguish useful opioid signaling from unwanted signaling. Whether a drug, biological therapy, or device can safely achieve that selectivity remains unknown.
What the Study Means for Pain-Drug Development
The study identifies LC-MOR signaling as a credible preclinical target, but it does not provide a drug candidate or change how chronic pain should currently be treated.
For drug developers, the important result is the causal evidence that manipulating MOR signaling within LC circuitry can alter nerve-injury-induced hypersensitivity in mice. The projection-specific experiments add an important complication: MOR signaling did not produce the same behavioral effect across all LC pathways.
That means a future therapy may need to reproduce the beneficial circuit effect without broadly activating MORs throughout the LC, brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system. The researchers did not develop a molecule capable of doing this, determine whether long-term manipulation would remain effective, or establish its safety in humans.
The study therefore validates a biological mechanism worth investigating rather than a medicine ready for clinical development.
Another Broad MOR Agonist Is Unlikely to Capture the Main Finding
A systemically administered MOR agonist would not reproduce the circuit selectivity examined in these experiments.
Systemic opioids affect MORs in numerous brain, spinal, and peripheral circuits involved in analgesia, respiratory depression, reinforcement, tolerance, dependence, constipation, and other effects.
The projection-dependent results also suggest that anatomical context matters. Simply designing another potent MOR agonist would probably miss the central lesson: where and in which cellular environment the receptor is engaged may be as important as whether it is engaged.
Circuit-Selective Pharmacology Offers One Possible Direction
In related work, Kuo and McCall (2025) screened endogenous receptor responses in different LC neuron populations. They identified a combination of G-protein-coupled receptor agonists that preferentially inhibited LC neurons projecting to the medial prefrontal cortex. In mice, the combination produced synergistic antinociception.
This work suggests a plausible development sequence: genetic and optical tools first identify a relevant circuit; pharmacological screening then searches for receptor combinations enriched in that circuit; researchers test whether those combinations can influence it without genetic manipulation; and any candidate proceeds to broader efficacy, pharmacokinetic, toxicology, and safety studies.
This approach is more drug-like than optogenetics because it does not require neurons to be genetically made responsive to light. Preferential inhibition, however, is not complete selectivity. Each component of a drug combination could still act at receptors elsewhere in the brain and body.
Other Strategies Are Possible but Difficult
Targeted delivery could theoretically concentrate a therapy within selected cells or brain regions, but safely and repeatedly delivering treatment to a small brainstem nucleus would be a major challenge.
Gene therapy might restore or modify receptor signaling, as the mouse rescue experiment conceptually demonstrated. Direct viral delivery into the human LC would be invasive, difficult to reverse, and difficult to justify for a common chronic condition unless benefits were substantial and safer alternatives had failed.
Neuromodulation might eventually influence LC-related circuitry without permanently changing genes. Present clinical stimulation techniques, however, generally lack the projection-level precision used in these experiments.
Each approach trades practicality against selectivity.
Human Evidence Remains Preliminary
Before an LC-directed intervention could be developed rationally, researchers would need evidence that an analogous circuit abnormality exists in people. A biomarker would also be highly valuable for identifying patients in whom the corresponding mechanism is active.
Human imaging has found associations between LC-related measures and some chronic-pain conditions, but it has not established that LC dysfunction causes or maintains those conditions.
DeMayo and colleagues (2025) studied 46 people with fibromyalgia and 41 healthy controls using neuromelanin-sensitive MRI to measure LC signal intensity. They found no significant group difference and no significant relationship between LC signal and fibromyalgia severity, pain, or several related symptoms.
Nearly 90% of participants with fibromyalgia had previously used medications affecting noradrenergic function, complicating interpretation. The authors also noted that a structural signal-intensity measure may not capture dynamic noradrenergic activity.
A separate resting-state imaging study involving 73 people with chronic low-back pain and 52 controls reported altered LC-cerebellar-cortical connectivity (Zhang et al., 2025). This association supports further investigation but cannot establish causation or confirm the MOR-dependent mechanism observed in mice.
A future biomarker could involve functional or molecular imaging, pharmacological challenge testing, conditioned pain modulation, autonomic measurements, or a combination of approaches. At present, no validated clinical test identifies patients whose pain is maintained by deficient MOR regulation of an LC-to-prefrontal pathway.
That matters because chronic pain is not a single biological disorder. An LC-directed treatment might benefit a mechanistically defined subgroup while doing little—or producing unwanted effects—in patients whose pain arises from different processes.
Safety Evaluation Would Need to Go Far Beyond Pain Scores
Because the LC has many physiological functions, safety studies would need to assess alertness, attention, sleep, blood pressure, heart rate, stress and anxiety responses, motor function, respiratory effects, tolerance, physical dependence, withdrawal, reinforcement, abuse potential, and the consequences of prolonged treatment.
Clinical trials would also need to demonstrate more than altered sensitivity to heat or pressure. A successful human treatment should produce meaningful and durable improvements in spontaneous pain, sleep, mobility, daily activity, emotional well-being, medication use, and quality of life.
The pharmaceutical meaning of the study can therefore be summarized simply:
It gives drug developers credible biology and a circuit-level screening strategy to investigate, but it does not provide a clinically usable molecule, delivery method, biomarker, safety profile, or defined patient population.
Existing Medicines Show the Same Noradrenergic Complexity
Existing pain medicines already illustrate why the location of norepinephrine signaling matters.
Duloxetine and tricyclic antidepressants increase monoamine availability and can help treat some forms of neuropathic pain. Experimental evidence indicates that increased spinal norepinephrine contributes to descending pain inhibition. Gabapentinoids act through a different primary molecular target but may also recruit descending noradrenergic mechanisms in animal models (Hayashida & Obata, 2019; Obata, 2017).
Norepinephrine is not uniformly analgesic, however. In a rat neuropathic-pain model, Arai and colleagues (2025) found that spinal norepinephrine contributed to duloxetine’s analgesic action, whereas medial-prefrontal norepinephrine counteracted part of that effect.
The study was preclinical and does not justify changing an individual’s medication. It nevertheless reinforces the broader principle that “increase norepinephrine” is not a complete explanation of pain relief. Where, when, and within which neural module signaling changes may determine the result.
A More Advanced Non-Opioid Strategy Targets Peripheral Nerves
The LC approach seeks to alter central pain modulation. Another development strategy tries to reduce nociceptive signaling before it reaches the central nervous system.
NaV1.8 is a voltage-gated sodium channel expressed predominantly in peripheral sensory neurons involved in nociception. In January 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the NaV1.8 inhibitor suzetrigine, sold as Journavx, for moderate-to-severe acute pain in adults (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2025).
The indication is important: Journavx is approved for acute pain, not chronic neuropathic pain. Its prescribing information states that treatment of acute pain beyond 14 days has not been studied (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2026).
Another NaV1.8 inhibitor, LTG-001, produced greater 48-hour postoperative pain reductions than placebo in a company-funded, randomized Phase IIb trial involving 343 adults after abdominoplasty (Singla et al., 2026). That trial concerned acute postoperative pain, not chronic neuropathic pain.
The comparison shows the translational distance between the approaches. NaV1.8 inhibition has produced an FDA-approved drug for acute pain and candidates tested in randomized human trials. Projection-selective manipulation of LC-MOR circuitry remains preclinical.
As of August 2026, suzetrigine was also being evaluated in Phase III trials for pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. These studies concern a potential chronic neuropathic-pain indication and should not be confused with the drug’s existing FDA approval for acute pain. Because clinical-trial status can change, readers should consult current trial records and regulatory labeling (ClinicalTrials.gov, 2026).
The Study’s Principal Limitations
Four limitations define what the paper can support:
- It was a mouse study. The specific LC-MOR mechanism has not been demonstrated in humans.
- The outcomes primarily measured evoked hypersensitivity. They did not capture the full sensory, emotional, and functional experience of chronic pain.
- The broad genetic deletion was not exclusive to LC neurons. Because it existed during development, compensatory changes may have affected the results.
- The receptor rescue was not projection-specific. It showed that restoring MOR signaling in the LC normalized chronic hypersensitivity but did not definitively identify the projection responsible for that effect.
These limitations do not invalidate the study. They define the boundary between what the experiments demonstrated and what remains hypothetical.
The Findings May Not Apply to Every Type of Chronic Pain
The experiments used spared nerve injury, a mouse model of neuropathic hypersensitivity following peripheral nerve damage. They do not establish that the same LC-MOR mechanism drives osteoarthritis, migraine, cancer pain, fibromyalgia, inflammatory pain, chronic low-back pain, or other conditions commonly grouped under the term “chronic pain.”
Even neuropathic pain can arise from different causes, including diabetes, traumatic nerve injury, chemotherapy, herpes zoster, and radiculopathy. Whether these conditions alter LC circuitry in the same way remains unknown.
Any future LC-directed treatment would therefore require researchers to identify not only an effective intervention but also the patients and pain mechanisms most likely to respond.
Funding and Conflicts of Interest
Kuo and colleagues reported support from public and philanthropic sources, including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience, Washington University’s COSTAR program, Rita Allen Foundation, and Open Philanthropy. The authors declared no conflicts of interest (Kuo et al., 2026).
The absence of commercial funding does not prove that a result is correct, just as industry funding does not automatically invalidate research. It does indicate that the study was not a clinical trial of a sponsor’s existing drug candidate.
The LTG-001 trial was funded by Latigo Biotherapeutics, and several authors were affiliated with the company (Singla et al., 2026). Its randomized, double-blind design and peer review remain relevant, while sponsorship should also be considered when evaluating the evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did scientists cure chronic pain?
No. Researchers normalized nerve-injury-induced thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity in genetically manipulated mice. They did not test a cure or treatment in humans.
What is the locus coeruleus?
The locus coeruleus is a small brainstem nucleus and the principal source of norepinephrine in the central nervous system. It helps regulate arousal, attention, stress responses, and pain modulation.
What is the “brake” described in the study?
The metaphor refers to inhibitory signaling through mu opioid receptors on certain LC neurons. Functional MOR signaling appears to restrain a pain-promoting LC pathway, but its behavioral effect depends on which circuit contains the receptor.
Did the researchers discover a new opioid?
No. They used genetic, viral, and optogenetic techniques to investigate receptor and circuit function. They did not develop a clinical pain medicine.
Could this approach avoid opioid addiction or respiratory depression?
The study did not answer that question. Addiction, tolerance, dependence, withdrawal, reinforcement, and respiratory safety were not tested.
Does the finding apply to fibromyalgia, arthritis, or migraine?
Not on the current evidence. The experiments used a mouse model of peripheral nerve injury. Other chronic-pain conditions may involve different mechanisms.
How close is this to a human treatment?
It is at the mechanistic, preclinical stage. Human confirmation, a practical intervention, extensive safety testing, and multiple phases of clinical trials would be required. A biomarker identifying the relevant patient subgroup would be highly valuable.
Final Thoughts
Kuo and colleagues did not discover a universal switch that turns chronic pain off. They showed that mu opioid receptor signaling regulates a pain-promoting locus coeruleus circuit and that restoring this signaling can normalize chronic nerve-injury-induced hypersensitivity in genetically deficient mice.
The same receptor produced different behavioral effects depending on which neurons carried it and where those neurons projected. That circuit specificity is both the study’s promise and its central translational obstacle.
The discovery may eventually help researchers pursue more selective analgesic strategies. For now, it remains a mechanistic finding in mice—not a human treatment, a new opioid, or a cure for chronic pain.
References
Arai, Y., Suto, T., Xin, H., Honda, Y., Hiroki, T., Obata, H., & Saito, S. (2025). Duloxetine deteriorates prefrontal noradrenergic pain facilitation, but reduces locus coeruleus activity to restore endogenous analgesia in chronic neuropathic pain state. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 19924. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04976-4
Castejón España, J., Yasoda-Mohan, A., & Vanneste, S. (2024). The locus coeruleus in chronic pain. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25(16), Article 8636. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25168636
ClinicalTrials.gov. (2026). Evaluation of efficacy and safety of suzetrigine for pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (NCT06628908). U.S. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved August 28, 2026, from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06628908
DeMayo, M. M., Cassidy, C. M., McCreary, C., Trang, T., Harris, A. D., & McGirr, A. (2025). Locus coeruleus MR measured signal intensity in fibromyalgia relative to healthy controls. European Journal of Pain, 29(10), Article e70173. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.70173
Hayashida, K., & Obata, H. (2019). Strategies to treat chronic pain and strengthen impaired descending noradrenergic inhibitory system. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(4), Article 822. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20040822
Hirschberg, S., Li, Y., Randall, A., Kremer, E. J., & Pickering, A. E. (2017). Functional dichotomy in spinal- vs prefrontal-projecting locus coeruleus modules splits descending noradrenergic analgesia from ascending aversion and anxiety in rats. eLife, 6, Article e29808. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29808
Kuo, C.-C., & McCall, J. G. (2025). Circuit-selective pharmacological targeting of prefrontal cortex-projecting locus coeruleus neurons drives antinociception. Cell Reports, 44(10), Article 116294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116294
Kuo, C.-C., Norris, M. R., Dunn, S. S., Becker, L. J., Kim, J. R., Vazquez, C. R., Borges, G., Thang, L. V., O’Brien, J. T., Parker, K. E., & McCall, J. G. (2026). Mu opioid receptors gate the locus coeruleus pain generator. Current Biology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2026.07.048
Obata, H. (2017). Analgesic mechanisms of antidepressants for neuropathic pain. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(11), Article 2483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18112483
Raja, S. N., Carr, D. B., Cohen, M., Finnerup, N. B., Flor, H., Gibson, S., Keefe, F. J., Mogil, J. S., Ringkamp, M., Sluka, K. A., Song, X.-J., Stevens, B., Sullivan, M. D., Tutelman, P. R., Ushida, T., & Vader, K. (2020). The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: Concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain, 161(9), 1976–1982. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939
Singla, N., Katz, N. P., Vaughn, B., Rogier, T., Bertoch, T., Minkowitz, H., & Loflin, M. (2026). Phase 2b trial of a NaV1.8 inhibitor for acute pain. The New England Journal of Medicine, 395, 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2602910
Taylor, B. K., & Westlund, K. N. (2017). The noradrenergic locus coeruleus as a chronic pain generator. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 95(6), 1336–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23956
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2025, January 30). FDA approves novel non-opioid treatment for moderate to severe acute pain. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-novel-non-opioid-treatment-moderate-severe-acute-pain
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2026). Journavx—suzetrigine tablet, film coated [Prescribing information]. DailyMed. Retrieved August 28, 2026, from https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=f0976da4-1d20-4517-945c-b60ed2f41c12
Zhang, B., Guo, M., Chai, M., Zhang, X., Wei, F., He, Y., Hao, Z., Liu, Y., Tian, X., Zhou, S., & Mao, C. (2025). Dysfunctional locus coeruleus-cerebellum-cortex pathways in chronic low back pain: A resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging and machine learning study. Brain Research Bulletin, 232, Article 111580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2025.111580
