Effects of training dose on amphetamine drug discrimination: dose-response functions and generalization to cocaine

Study design criteria for regulatory-based drug control action: Drug discrimination

This "methods paper" focusses on one specific and limited aspect of drug safety evaluations required for all new drug entities that affect the central nervous system - the drug discrimination (DD) assay. We focus on three critical factors involved in experimental design and protocol development for the conduct of DD studies for abuse liability risk assessment that comply with the Good Laboratory Practice Guidelines (GLPs). The selection of 1) the reference drug(s) choice, 2) training dose selection, and 3) the selected route-of-administration will determine the applicability of the data to meet the regulatory expectations of the 8-factors determinative of schedule control recommendations. The study conduct and resulting data submission to the FDA are intended for drug scheduling review by the Controlled Substances Staff in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA). These animal studies are required to meet the statutory requirements of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The abuse liability study is conducted during Phase II and III of human clinical trials. Procedural or method-based errors this late in drug development can result in a significant economic and business threat to the program.

Discriminative stimulus effects of cocaine-levamisole combinations in Sprague-Dawley rats

BACKGROUND

Levamisole (LVM) is a common adulterant in clandestinely manufactured cocaine (COC), with a range of well-documented deleterious health effects. Although the prevalence of LVM in COC has been widely noted, the subjective effects related to concomitant COC-LVM administration are poorly understood.

AIMS

The present study sought to compare the subjective effects of LVM alone and in combination with COC in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats trained to discriminate COC from vehicle injections.

METHODS

Male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate COC from vehicle injections using a two-lever, food-reinforced drug discrimination procedure. Subsequent dose-effect curves were generated for COC, LVM, and a variety of COC-LVM combinations.

RESULTS

No significant difference in males and females was observed on any measure of responding. LVM alone dose-dependently decreased response rates and failed to produce substitution for COC. When LVM was administered with COC, previously ineffective doses of COC engendered COC-appropriate responding.

CONCLUSIONS

LVM potentiates the subjective effects of COC when administered concomitantly. These findings are consistent with the popular notion that LVM is added as an adulterant to COC to amplify the subjective effects of COC administration.

A preclinical evaluation of the discriminative and reinforcing properties of lisdexamfetamine in comparison to D-amfetamine, methylphenidate and modafinil

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, which consists of L-lysine covalently bound to D-amfetamine, is the first prodrug for treating ADHD. Its metabolic conversion to yield D-amfetamine by rate-limited, enzymatic hydrolysis is unusual because it is performed by peptidases associated with red blood cells. Other stimulants shown to be effective in managing ADHD include D-amfetamine, methylphenidate and modafinil. All have the potential for misuse or recreational abuse. The discriminative and reinforcing effects of these compounds were determined in rats using a 2-choice, D-amfetamine (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.)-cued drug-discrimination test, and by substitution for intravenous cocaine in self-administration. Lisdexamfetamine (0.5-1.5 mg/kg [D-amfetamine base], p.o.) generalised to saline when tested 15 min post-dosing, but dose-dependently generalised to d-amfetamine at 60 min. At 120 min, its D-amfetamine-like effects were substantially diminished. At 15 min, methylphenidate (3.0-10 mg/kg, p.o.) and D-amfetamine (0.1-1.5 mg/kg, p.o.) dose-dependently generalised to the intraperitoneal D-amfetamine cue. Switching to the intraperitoneal route reduced the interval required for lisdexamfetamine to be recognised as D-amfetamine-like, but did not alter its potency. Switching to intraperitoneal injection increased the potency of methylphenidate and D-amfetamine by 3.4× and 2.2×, respectively. Modafinil (50-200 mg/kg, i.p.) generalised partially, but not fully, to d-amfetamine. Methylphenidate (0.1, 0.3, 1.0 mg/kg/injection, i.v.) maintained robust self-administration at the 2 highest doses. Neither lisdexamfetamine (0.05, 0.15 or 0.5 mg/kg/injection [D-amfetamine base], i.v.) nor modafinil (0.166, 0.498 or 1.66 mg/kg/injection, i.v.) served as reinforcers. The results reveal important differences between the profiles of these stimulants. Lisdexamfetamine did not serve as a positive reinforcer in cocaine-trained rats, and although it generalised fully to D-amfetamine, its discriminative effects were markedly influenced by its unusual pharmacokinetics.

Role of training dose in drug discrimination: a review

Drug discrimination has been an important technique in behavioural pharmacology for at least 40 years. The characteristics of drug-produced discriminative stimuli are influenced by behavioural and pharmacological variables, including the doses used to establish discriminations. This review covers studies on the effects of varying the training dose of a drug in a search for general principles that are applicable across different drug classes and methodological approaches. With respect to quantitative changes, relationships between training dose and the rate of acquisition or magnitude of stimulus control were found for most drug classes. Acquisition accelerated with dose up to a point beyond which drug-induced impairments of performance had a deleterious impact. Sensitivity to the training drug as measured by ED(50) values typically increased when the training dose was reduced. Qualitative changes were more complex and appeared to fall into three categories: (a) changes in profiles of generalization between partial and full agonists; (b) reduced specificity of some discriminations at small training doses; and (c) changes in the relative salience of actions mediated through different neurotransmitter systems or from central and peripheral sites. Three-lever discrimination procedures incorporating 'drug versus drug' or 'dose versus dose' contingencies enabled detection of more subtle differences than the simple 'drug versus no drug' approach when applied to the opioid, hallucinogen and barbiturate classes of drugs. These conclusions have implications for the interpretation of data from studies that use either within-subject or between-subject designs for studying the discriminative stimulus effects of drugs.

Drug discrimination in methamphetamine-trained monkeys: effects of monoamine transporter inhibitors

The involvement of brain monoamine systems in the discriminative stimulus effects of methamphetamine (MA) was studied in squirrel monkeys by evaluating the effects of differentially selective monoamine uptake inhibitors alone and in combination. In monkeys discriminating i.m. injections of 0.3 mg/kg MA from saline, methamphetamine (0.01-0.3 mg/kg), and dopamine transporter (DAT) inhibitors, including 1-[2-(bis(4-fluorophenyl)-methoxy)ethyl]-4-(3-phenylpropyl)piperazine (GBR 12909; 1.0-17.8 mg/kg) and its analogs AM2502 (1.0-17.8 mg/kg), AM2506 (1.0-30.0 mg/kg), AM2515 (1.0-17.8 mg/kg), and AM2517 (1.0-5.6 mg/kg), produced dose-related increases in responding on the MA-associated lever and, at the highest doses, full substitution. The time course of MA-like effects was similar for equivalent (3.0 mg/kg) doses of GBR 12909 and its most potent analog, AM2517. Unlike the DAT blockers, the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) uptake inhibitor clomipramine (1.0-10.0 mg/kg) and the selective norepinepherine (NE) uptake inhibitor desipramine (1.0-10 mg/kg) produced responding primarily on the saline lever. The selective NE uptake inhibitor nisoxetine partially substituted at the highest dose tested (10.0 mg/kg). Pretreatment with GBR 12909 or AM2517 enhanced the discriminative stimulus effects of MA, shifting the dose-effect curve leftward. The NE uptake inhibitors desipramine or nisoxetine also enhanced the discriminative stimulus effects of MA, whereas clomipramine only attenuated them. These results support the view that dopaminergic mechanisms play a prominent role in the discriminative stimulus effects of MA in monkeys, whereas involvement of serotonergic and noradrenergic systems may be limited to a modulatory role.