Citation

Kirkpatrick MG, Gunderson EW, Johanson CE, Levin FR, Foltin RW, Hart CL. Addiction 2012; 107(4): 783-791.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, Columbia University Division on Substance Abuse, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Wayne State University.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03706.x

PMID

22050030

Abstract

Aims:  There are no studies directly comparing self-administration of methamphetamine and d-amphetamine by humans. This study compared intranasal methamphetamine- and d-amphetamine self-administration and characterized the mood, performance, and physiological effects produced by the drugs. Design:  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Setting:  An outpatient research unit at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Participants:  Male recreational methamphetamine users (n= 13). Measurements:  Five 2-day blocks of sessions were conducted. On the first day of each block, participants "sampled" a single methamphetamine or d-amphetamine dose (0, 12, 50 mg/70 kg) and a monetary reinforcer ($5 or $20). Amphetamines plasma levels, cardiovascular, mood, and psychomotor performance effects were assessed before drug administration and repeatedly thereafter. On the second day of each block, participants chose between the sampled reinforcers (drug or money). Findings:  There were no significant differences between the drugs on the majority of measures. Under the $5 condition, both amphetamines dose-dependently increased self-administration, with 41% drug choices overall. Under the $20 condition, only 17% drug options were selected. Both drugs increased cardiovascular activity and "positive" mood, although methamphetamine produced more prominent effects on some measures (e.g., heart rate and ratings of 'high'). Conclusions:  Methamphetamine and d-amphetamines appear to produce a similar dose-related profile of effects in humans, which supports their equivalence for abuse potential.

Language: en