Acute effects of amitriptyline on human performance and interactions with diazepam

Rupatadine does not potentiate the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam: randomized, double-blind, crossover, repeated dose, placebo-controlled study

AIM

The main objective was to assess whether benzodiazepine intake when rupatadine plasma concentrations were at steady-state would increase the CNS depressant effects. Rupatadine is a new H(1)-antihistamine which also inhibits platelet activating factor (PAF) release and has been shown to be clinically effective at doses of 10 mg.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy young volunteers took part in a crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial comprising two experimental periods (repeated administration for 7 days of rupatadine 10 mg or placebo as single oral daily doses, separated by a washout of 14 days). On days 5 and 7, according to a fully balanced design, a single oral dose of lorazepam 2 mg or placebo was added. CNS effects were evaluated on these days by seven objective tests of psychomotor performance and eight subjective visual analogue scales (VAS) at pre-dose and several times after drug intake. Four treatment conditions were evaluated: placebo, rupatadine 10 mg, lorazepam 2 mg and rupatadine 10 mg + lorazepam 2 mg.

RESULTS

Significant CNS effects, either impairment of psychomotor performance or subjective sedation, were observed when lorazepam was administered, either alone or in combination with steady state concentrations of rupatadine. No significant differences were found between these two conditions. In addition, rupatadine was not different from placebo. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Repeated doses of rupatadine (10 mg orally) did not enhance the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam (2 mg orally, single dose) either in objective psychomotor tasks or in subjective evaluations.

Effects on postural oscillation and memory functions of a single dose of zolpidem 5 mg, zopiclone 3.75 mg and lormetazepam 1 mg in elderly healthy subjects. A randomized, cross-over, double-blind study versus placebo

OBJECTIVE

In elderly patients, both falls and impaired memory are considerable medical problems. Hypnotics, which are frequently administered to this patient group for the treatment of insomnia, should ideally not impair equilibrium or memory functions. This double-blind, randomised, four-way, cross-over study investigated the effects of frequently prescribed hypnotics from different classes on postural oscillation and memory under real life conditions. Zolpidem 5 mg, zopiclone 3.75 mg, lormetazepam 1 mg (i.e. usual starting doses in elderly) or placebo were administered at night to 48 healthy elderly volunteers aged 65 years or more. The study included four treatment periods separated by wash-out periods of at least 1 week.

METHODS

Psychomotor tests up to 9 h or 10 h after drug intake included, for attention and body sway, clinical stabilometric platform (CSP) tests, simple reaction time (SRT), and the critical tracking test (CTT); for memory, the learning memory tasks (LMT) and the Sternberg memory scanning test (mean reaction time [MRT] and percentage of correct answers) were used. For subjective sleep evaluation the Leeds sleep evaluation questionnaire (LSEQ) and for sedation a visual analogue scale (VAS) were used. For safety evaluations, adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate that compared with placebo, the active drugs increased body sway (area eyes open and closed in the CSP); however, this effect disappeared after 5 h with zolpidem, while it disappeared only after 8 h with lormetazepam and zopiclone. All three drugs did not affect attention assessed by the SRT and CTT. Concerning memory, Sternberg MRT at 9 h was not significantly different up to 5 digits for all groups in comparison with placebo, while for 6 digits it was significantly increased with lormetazepam and zopiclone. In the LMT, an impairment of performance was observed with lormetazepam relative to both zolpidem and placebo.

CONCLUSION

The safest compared drug with regard to body sway was zolpidem, because of its short-lasting effect. In addition, zolpidem did not show any significant effect on memory functions, in the present dose comparison.

Psychomotor and cognitive effects of piribedil, a dopamine agonist, in young healthy volunteers

Piribedil is a dopamine agonist acting on D2 and D3 central nervous system dopamine receptors. This drug has been administered to 12 young healthy male volunteers (age 22 +/- 2 years) according to a single center randomized, double-blind, two ways cross-over, placebo controlled trial, including a washout period of one week. Placebo and piribedil were administered by a single intravenous infusion over 2 h (3 mg). Psychomotor performance and cognitive functions were assessed through a standardized and computerized psychometric tests battery and a continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) mapping. Piribedil improved simple reaction time (P=0.02), immediate (P=0.045 and 0.004), and delayed free recall (P=0.05), dual coding test (P=0.02) and increased theta and fast beta waves on the EEG (P < 0.05 and 0.001, respectively). No deleterious effect was observed on the tests exploring attention and concentration via the other procedures. It is concluded that a single intravenous perfusion of piribedil 3 mg improves alertness and the information processing speed within the central nervous system, in healthy volunteers.

Clinical pharmacology of psychotropic drugs

No Abstract

Discriminative stimulus effects of diazepam and buspirone in normal volunteers

A within-subject design was used to characterize the effects of dose manipulations on discriminative and self-reported effects of oral diazepam and buspirone. Subjects were trained to discriminate diazepam (10 mg) versus placebo (n = 10), or buspirone (10 or 15 mg) versus placebo (n = 9). The compounds were identified to subjects by letter code before discrimination training began. In later sessions, correct identifications at 2 hr after the oral administration of drug earned money. All subjects showed accurate discrimination performance during the test-of-acquisition phase. In a low-dose generalization phase, diazepam and buspirone produced dose-related increases in drug identifications across a four-fold range of doses. In a subsequent low-dose training phase, in which subjects were trained to discriminate progressively lower drug doses, the median lowest discriminable dose of diazepam and buspirone was 2.5 and 7.5 mg, respectively. Dose-response functions for drug identifications were shifted leftward in the low-dose training phase relative to the low-dose generalization phase, suggesting that reinforcement of progressively lower doses enhances drug discriminability. The self-reported effects of diazepam and buspirone were similar (e.g., both drugs increased ratings of drug strength and clumsy/uncoordinated) and different (e.g., diazepam but not buspirone increased ratings of drowsy/sleepy; buspirone but not diazepam increased ratings of tense/nervous). This study demonstrates discriminative and self-reported effects of diazepam and buspirone at doses lower than previously shown to be behaviorally active, and suggests that at commonly used clinical doses, diazepam is relatively more discriminable than buspirone.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of the potential drug interaction between venlafaxine and diazepam

To assess possible pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between the antidepressant venlafaxine and diazepam, a randomized, two-period, crossover study was conducted in 18 men. Multiple-dose venlafaxine (50 mg every 8 hours) or placebo (double-blind) was given for 10 days; on day 4 a single placebo dose (same appearance as diazepam capsule, single-blind) was given; and on day 5 a single dose of diazepam (10 mg) was given. Pharmacokinetic data indicated that diazepam had no significant effect on venlafaxine or O-desmethylvenlafaxine disposition. Diazepam pharmacokinetics were minimally changed in the presence of venlafaxine. Diazepam oral clearance (CL/f) increased slightly (24 +/- 8 versus 26 +/- 6 mL/h/kg; P = .007), volume of distribution (Vz/f) increased (0.85 +/- 0.28 versus 0.99 +/- 0.34 L/kg; P = .02), and AUC decreased (5973 +/- 2304 versus 5008 +/- 1354 ng.h/mL; P = .02). Venlafaxine did not alter desmethyldiazepam pharmacokinetics. Pharmacodynamic data showed a statistically significant diazepam-venlafaxine interaction for only one of the eight psychometric tests given. Critical flicker fusion slightly decreased (P = .01) between placebo-diazepam (37.85 +/- 3.28 Hz) and venlafaxine-diazepam (37.09 +/- 4.13 Hz) treatments. The observed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between diazepam and venlafaxine were small and probably clinically insignificant.

Assessment of the interaction between a partial agonist and a full agonist of benzodiazepine receptors, based on psychomotor performance and memory, in healthy volunteers

Potential interactions between the imidazopyridine anxiolytic alpidem and the full benzodiazepine agonist lorazepam were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, four-way cross-over, placebo-controlled study in 16 healthy young male volunteers. Each volunteer received alpidem, 50 mg, or a placebo twice daily for 8 days with a 1- week wash-out interval. The interaction between alpidem, at the steady state, and a single oral dose of lorazepam 2 mg or a placebo was assessed after concomitant administration on days 7 or 9 of each treatment period. Psycho motor performance and cognitive function were evaluated before and 2, 4, 6 and 8 h post-dose, using objective tests [critical flicker fusion threshold (CFF), choice reaction time (CRT), digit-symbol substitution (DSST), body sway and short-term memory (Sternberg memory scanning)] and self-ratings [line analogue rating scales: (LARS)]. Long-term memory (delayed free recall and recognition of pictures) was assessed before the dose and 2 and 4 h post-dose. Pharmacodynamic interactions were evaluated by applying repeated measures ANOVA to a 2 x 2 factorial interaction model. Alpidem, 50 mg twice daily at the steady state, was free of any clinically relevant detrimental effects on skilled performance, information processing or memory. In contrast, a single 2 mg dose of lorazepam induced marked impairment of psychomotor performance and cognitive function (significant reductions in CFF and DSST and increases in CRT and body sway), as well as subjective sedation from 2 to 8 h post-dose, depending on the test used. In addition, lorazepam induced anterograde amnesia, characterized by a decrease in delayed free recall and recognition, and a deficit in short-term memory. Finally, alpidem 50 mg did not potentiate the detrimental effects of lorazepam 2 mg. On the contrary, alpidem significantly antagonized the lorazepam-induced CRT increase and anterograde amnesia, and produced similar trends on most of the other cognitive parameters; thus, the results obtained with the combination of alpidem and lorazepam consistently indicated less impairment than those measured after lorazepam alone. These results are consistent with the suggested partial agonsist properties of alpidem at the benzodiazepine receptor and indicate that such properties can be assessed in humans based on antagonism of the effects of a full agonist.

Lack of interaction between a new antihistamine, mizolastine, and lorazepam on psychomotor performance and memory in healthy volunteers

1. The possible interaction between a new H1 antihistamine, mizolastine, and lorazepam was assessed in a randomised, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled study involving 16 healthy young male volunteers who received mizolastine 10 mg or placebo once daily for 8 days with a 1 week wash-out interval. The interaction of mizolastine, at steady-state, with a single oral dose of lorazepam or placebo was assessed on days 6 or 8 of each treatment period. 2. Psychomotor performance and cognitive function were evaluated using objective tests (critical flicker fusion threshold, choice reaction time, tapping, arithmetic calculation, body sway) and self-ratings (visual analogue scale, ARCI) before and at 2, 4, 6 and 8 h after dosing. Short-term memory (Sternberg memory scanning immediate free recall of a word list) and long-term memory (delayed free recall and recognition of words and pictures) were assessed before and at 3 h after dosing. Pharmacodynamic interactions were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA in a 2 x 2 factorial interaction model. 3. Mizolastine, 10 mg once daily, at steady-state, was devoid of sedation and detrimental effect on skilled performance and memory. 4. In contrast, a single 2 mg dose of lorazepam produced marked impairment of psychomotor performance, cognitive functions (significant reduction in flicker fusion threshold, tapping and arithmetic calculation and increase in reaction times and body sway) and subjective sedation from 2 to 8 h after dosing. In addition, lorazepam induced an anterograde amnesia, characterised by a decrease in delayed free recall and recognition, and a deficit in short term memory.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of suriclone imipramine interaction in man

Suriclone is a novel cyclopyrrolone exhibiting anxiolytic activity. Twelve healthy Caucasian male volunteers participated in the study. A single dose of suriclone 0.4 mg, imipramine 75 mg, suriclone 0.4 mg + imipramine 75 mg, or placebo was given according to a 4 x 4 Latin-square design in order to assess the effect of drug association on pharmacokinetics and psychomotor performances. Visual analogue scale ratings, critical flicker frequency, choice visual reaction time, and Pauli, picture memory and Sternberg tests were performed before and 1.5, 6 and 9 h after drug administration. Suriclone, with the exception of the Pauli test, had no effect on psychomotor performances. The imipramine-suriclone association appeared to disturb some performances (no statistical significance), probably due to the effect of imipramine. Blood samples were collected for determination of imipramine and suriclone plasma levels respectively by high-performance liquid chromatography and radioimmunoassays. Suriclone AUC, Cmax and Tmax were not affected by imipramine, and reciprocally.

The use of microcomputer-based psychomotor tests for the evaluation of benzodiazepine effects on human performance: a review with emphasis on temazepam

1. The literature relating to the effects of benzodiazepines in general, and temazepam in particular, on human psychomotor performance as assessed using microcomputer-based testing batteries is surveyed. 2. The adverse effects of central nervous system depressants on performance is an important mediocolegal issue and frequently comes into question in on-the-road and on-the-job accidents. The use of microcomputer-based testing batteries allows for performance evaluation both in the laboratory and at-the-scene, as well as providing the opportunity to model a large number of different behaviours required in routine yet complex psychomotor tasks. 3. The conclusions in general are: (1) The benzodiazepines as a class of drugs impair both cognitive and motor performance. These effects are often subtle when low doses are involved or when testing occurs the morning following evening administration of the medication. (2) No single psychomotor task adequately simulates complex daily tasks such as automobile driving. A battery of tests that evaluates a number of the components of such tasks is necessary to determine adequately the full range of effects of these medications.