Do formulation differences alter abuse liability of methylphenidate? A placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, crossover study in recreational drug users

Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 459-467

  Parasrampuria, Dolly A ^a   Schoedel, Kerri A ^b   Schuller, Reinhard ^b   Silber, Steven A ^a   Ciccone, Patrick E ^a   Gu, Joan ^a   Sellers, Edward M ^b  

^a McNeil Laboratories Inc   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METHYLPHENIDATE; PLACEBO;

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG DOSAGE FORM COMPARISON; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG FORMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

ADULT; BEHAVIOR, ADDICTIVE; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM STIMULANTS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DELAYED-ACTION PREPARATIONS; DOSAGE FORMS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METHYLPHENIDATE; OSMOTIC PRESSURE; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 34548660782     PISSN: 02710749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/jcp.0b013e3181515205     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and evaluation of the child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2000;105:1158-1170.
2. Greenhill LL, Pliszka S, Dulcan MK, et al. Practice parameter for the use of stimulant medications in the treatment of children, adolescents, and adults. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41:26S-49S.
3. Heil SH, Holmes HW, Bickel WK, et al. Comparison of the subjective, physiological, and psychomotor effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate in light drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67:149-156.
4. Jasinski DR. An evaluation of the abuse potential of modafinil using methylphenidate as a reference. J Psychopharmacol. 2000;14:53-60.
5. Roache JD, Grabowski J, Schmitz JM, et al. Laboratory measures of methylphenidate effects in cocaine-dependent patients receiving treatment. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2000;20:61-68.
6. Rush CR, Frey JM, Griffiths RR. Zaleplon and triazolam in humans: acute behavioral effects and abuse potential. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999;145:39-51.
7. Rush CR, Baker RW. Behavioral pharmacological similarities between methylphenidate and cocaine in cocaine abusers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001;9:59-73.
8. Stoops WW, Glaser PE, Fillmore MT, et al. Reinforcing, subject-rated, performance and physiological effects of methylphenidate and d-amphetamine in stimulant abusing humans. J Psychopharmacol. 2004;18:534-543.
9. Fone KC, Nutt DJ. Stimulants: use and abuse in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2005;5:87-93.
10. Huss M, Lehmkuhl U. Methylphenidate and substance abuse: a review of pharmacology, animal, and clinical studies. J Atten Disord. 2002;6(suppl 1):S65-S71.
11. Kollins SH. Comparing the abuse potential of methylphenidate versus other stimulants: a review of available evidence and relevance to the ADHD patient. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64(suppl 11):14-18.
12. Llana ME, Crismon ML. Methylphenidate: increased abuse or appropriate use? J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1999;39:526-530.
13. Volkow ND, Swanson JM. Variables that affect the clinical use and abuse of methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:1909-1918.
14. Weiner AL. Emerging drugs of abuse in Connecticut. Conn Med. 2000;64:19-23.
15. Volkow ND, Ding YS, Fowler JS, et al. Is methylphenidate like cocaine? Studies on their pharmacokinetics and distribution in the human brain. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52:456-463.
16. Balster RL, Bigelow GE. Guidelines and methodological reviews concerning drug abuse liability assessment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;70:S13-S40.
17. McColl S, Sellers EM. Research design strategies to evaluate the impact of formulations on abuse liability. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83(suppl 1):S52-S62.
18. Busto U, Sellers EM. Pharmacokinetic determinants of drug abuse and dependence. A conceptual perspective. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1986;11:144-153.
19. Farre M, Cami J. Pharmacokinetic considerations in abuse liability evaluation. Br J Addict. 1991;86:1601-1606.
20. Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, et al. Role of dopamine in the therapeutic and reinforcing effects of methylphenidate in humans: results from imaging studies. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2002;12:557-566.
21. Spencer TJ, Biederman J, Ciccone PE, et al. PET study examining pharmacokinetics, detection and likeability, and dopamine transporter receptor occupancy of short-and long-acting oral methylphenidate. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:387-395.
22. Griffiths RR, Bigelow GE, Ator NA. Principles of initial experimental drug abuse liability assessment in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;70:S41-S54.
23. Martin WR, Sloan JW, Sapira JD, et al. Physiologic, subjective, and behavioral effects of amphetamine, methamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine, and methylphenidate in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1971;12:245-258.
24. Cole JO, Orzack MH, Beake B, et al. Assessment of the abuse liability of buspirone in recreational sedative users. J Clin Psychiatry. 1982;43:69-75.
25. Srinivas NR, Hubbard JW, Quinn D, et al. Enantioselective pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dl-threo-methylphenidate in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;52:561-568.
26. Abreu ME, Bigelow GE, Fleisher L, et al. Effect of intravenous injection speed on responses to cocaine and hydromorphone in humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2001;154:76-84.
27. Kollins SH, Rush CR, Pazzaglia PJ, et al. Comparison of acute behavioral effects of sustained-release and immediate-release methylphenidate. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1998;6:367-374.
28. Samaha AN, Mallet N, Ferguson SM, et al. The rate of cocaine administration alters gene regulation and behavioral plasticity: implications for addiction. J Neurosci. 2004;24:6362-6370.
29. Samaha AN, Yau WY, Yang P, et al. Rapid delivery of nicotine promotes behavioral sensitization and alters its neurobiological impact. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57:351-360.
30. Samaha AN, Robinson TE. Why does the rapid delivery of drugs to the brain promote addiction? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2005;26:82-87.
31. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, et al. Dopamine transporter occupancies in the human brain induced by therapeutic doses of oral methylphenidate. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:1325-1331.
32. Volkow ND. Stimulant medications: how to minimize their reinforcing effects? Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:359-361.
33. McColl S, Schoedel KA, Danilov B, et al. Improving signal detection in human abuse liability studies: a case for using prestudy pharmacological testing. College on Problems of Drug Dependence 68th Annual Meeting; 2006; Scottsdale, AZ.
34. Comer SD, Collins ED, Fischman MW. Choice between money and intranasal heroin in morphine-maintained humans. Behav Pharmacol. 1997;8:677-690.
35. Johanson CE, Uhlenhuth EH. Drug preference and mood in humans: d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1980;71:275-279.