Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:03:19.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subjective effects of modafinil, a new central adrenergic stimulant in healthy volunteers: a comparison with amphetamine, caffeine and placebo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

D Warot ,
E Corruble ,
C Payan ,
JS Weil  and
AJ Puech
D Warot
Affiliation:
Département de Pharmacologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47 boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013Paris
E Corruble
Affiliation:
Département de Pharmacologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47 boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013Paris
C Payan
Affiliation:
Département de Pharmacologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47 boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013Paris
JS Weil
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Lafon, Centre de Recherche, 94701 Maisons Alfort Cedex, France
AJ Puech
Affiliation:
Département de Pharmacologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47 boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013Paris
Get access

Summary

The subjective, behavioral and physiological effects of modafinil (300 mg PO) a new central adrenergic stimulant, were compared with those of dextroamphetamine (15 mg PO), caffeine (300 mg PO) and placebo in a randomized double-blind cross-over study. Sixteen healthy volunteers participated in the study y: 8 males and 8 females with no history of drug abuse and moderate use of caffeine. Subjective and behavioral effects were studied using the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI), Profile of Mood States (POMS) and Visual Analog Scales before and 1, 2, 4 and 8 h post single oral dosing. Results showed that subjective effects of modafinil (300 mg) differed markedly from those of dextroamphetamine (15 mg). They were close to those produced by caffeine (300 mg). These results indicate that modafinil (300 mg) does not possess amphetamine-like subjective effects in a healthy population. If subjective feelings are related to drug abuse liability, it could be assumed that modafinil, at the dose used in therapeutics, does not possess any abuse liability comparable to amphetamine.

Keywords

modafinilamphetaminecaffeinehealthy volunteersubjective effectsARCI
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , 1993 , pp. 201 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bastuji, HJouvet, M (1988) Treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia and narcolepsy with modafinil. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol & Biol Psychiatry 12, 695–700CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bensimon, GForet, JWarot, DLacomblez, LThiercelin, JFSimon, P (1990) Daytime wakefulness following a bedtime oral dose of Zolpidem 20 mg, flunitrazepam 2 mg and placebo. Br J Clin Pharmacol 30, 463–469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bensimon, GBenoît, DLacomblez, LWeiller, EWarot, DWeil, JSPuech, AJ (1991) Antagonism by modafinil of the psychomotor and cognitive impairment induced by sleep-deprivation in 12 healthy volunteers. Eur Psychiatry 6, 93–97Google Scholar
Chait, LDGriffiths, RR (1983) Effects of caffeine on cigarette smoking and subjective response. Clin Pharmacol Ther 34, 612–622CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chait, LDUhlenhuth, EHJohanson, CE (1986) The discriminative stimulus and subjective effects of damphetamine, phenmetrazine and fenfluramine in humans. Psychopharmacology 89, 301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chait, LDUhlenhuth, EHJohanson, CE (1988) Phenylpropanolamine: reinforcing and subjective effects in normal human volunteers. Psychopharmacology 96, 212–217CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Wit, HUhlenhuth, EHJohanson, CE (1985) Drug preference in normal volunteers: effects of age and time of day. Psychopharmacology 87, 186–193CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duteil, JRambert, FAPessonnier, JHermant, JFGombert, RAssous, E (1990) Central alphal-adrenergic stimulation in relation to the behaviour stimulating effect of modafinil: studies with experimental animals. Eur J Pharmacol 180, 49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischman, MWSchuster, CRResnekov, LShick, JFEKrasnegor, AFennell, WFreedman, DX (1976) Cardiovascular and subjective effects of intravenous cocaine administration in humans. Arch Gen Psychiatry 33, 983–989CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischman, MWSchuster, CR (1982) Cocaine self-administration in humans. Fed Proc 41, 241–246Google ScholarPubMed
Fischman, MW (1989) Relationship between self-reported drug effects and their reinforcing effects: studies with stimulant drugs.In: Testing for Abuse Liability of Drugs in Humans. NIDA Research Monograph 92. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 211–230Google Scholar
Griffiths, RRWoodson, PP (1988) Caffeine physical dependence: a review of human and laboratory animal studies. Psychopharmacology 94, 437–451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haertzen, CA (1966) Development of scales based on patterns of drug effects, using the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI). Psychol Rep 18, 163–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haertzen, CA (1974) An overview of Addiction Research Center Inventory scales (ARCI): an appendix and manual of scales. US Governement Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
Heishman, SJHenningfield, JE (1991) Discriminative stimulus effects of d-amphetamine, methylphenidate, and diazepam in humans. Psychopharmacology 103, 436–442CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermant, JFRambert, FADuteil, J (1991) Awakening properties of modafinil: effect on nocturnal activity in monkeys (Macaca mulatta) after acute and repeated administration. Psychopharmacology 103,28-32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, HEHaertzen, CAWolbach, ABMiner, EJ (1963a) The Addiction Research Center Inventory: standardization of scales which evaluate subjective effects of morphine, amphetamine, pentobarbital, alcohol, LSD- 25, pyrahexil and chlorpromazine. Psychopharmacologia 4, 167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, HEHaertzen, CAWolbach, ABMiner, EJ (1963b) The Addiction Research Center Inventory: Appendix I. Items comprising empirical scales for seven drugs. II. Items which do not differentiate placebo from any drug condition. Psychopharmacologia 4, 184–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasinski, DRHenningfield, JE (1989) Human abuse liability assessment by measurement of subjective and physiological effects.In: Testing for Abuse Liability of Drugs in Humans. NIDA Research Monograph 92, US Governement Printing Office Washington DC, 73–100Google Scholar
Jasinski, DRMartin, WRHoeldtke, RD (1970) Effects of short and longterm administration of pentazocine in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 11, 385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, CEUhlenhuth, EH (1980a) Drug preference and Mood in humans: diazepam. Psychopharmacology 71,269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, CEUhlenhuth, EH (1980b) Drug preference and Mood in humans: d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacology 71,275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, CKilgore, KUhlenhuth, EH (1983) Assessment of dependence potential of drugs in human using multiple indices. Psychopharmacology 81, 144–149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johanson, CEWoolverton, WLSchuster, CR (1987) Evaluating laboratory models of drug dependence.In: Psychopharmacology: The Third Generation of Progress (Meltzer, HY ed). Raven Press, New York, 1617–1625Google Scholar
Kelly, THFoltin, RWFischman, MW (1991) The effects of repeated amphetamine exposure on multiple measures of human behavior. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 38,417–426CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lafon Laboratories (1989) Brochure for Investigators. Maisons Alfort, FranceGoogle Scholar
Mac Nair, DMLorr, MDroppleman, LF (1971) Profile of Mood States. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
Martin, WRSloan, JWSapira, JDJasinski, DR (1971) Physiologic, subjective and behavioral effects of amphetamine, metamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine and methylphenidate in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 12,245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, LGriffith, J (1983) A comparison of buproprion, dextroamphetamine and placebo in mixed substance abusers. Psychopharmacology 80, 199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rambert, FAPessonnier, JDuteil, J (1990) Modafinil, amphetamine- and methylphenidate-induced hyperactivities in mice involve different mechanisms. Eur J Pharmacol 183, 2, 455–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, CR (1989) Testing and abuse liability of drugs in humans.In: Testing for Abuse Liability of Drugs in Humans. NIDA Research Monograph 92: US Governement Printing Office, Washington DC, 1–6Google Scholar
Stern, KNChait, LDJohanson, CE (1989) Reinforcing and subjective effects of caffeine in normal human volunteers. Psychopharmacology 98, 81–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tewes, PAFischman, MW (1982) Effects of d-amphetamine and diazepam on fixed-interval, fixed-ratio responding in humans. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 221, 373–383Google ScholarPubMed
Warot, DMolinier, PLacomblez, LPayan, CDanjou, PhPuech, AJ (1989) Dose related effects of trimipramine on psychomotor function, memory and autonomic nervous system activity in healthy volunteers. Human Psychopharmacology 4, 121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.