Amphetamine-induced place preference in humans

Emma Childs, Harriet de Wit, Emma Childs, Harriet de Wit

Abstract

Background: The conditioned place preference procedure is a widely used animal model of rewarding drug effects that, to date, has not been tested in humans. In this study, we sought to demonstrate that humans, like nonhumans, would exhibit a preference for a place previously associated with amphetamine. Further, we investigated the relationship between conditioned place preference and the mood-altering effects of the drug.

Methods: Thirty-one healthy individuals participated in a five-session procedure during which they experienced the effects of d-amphetamine (20 mg) or placebo on two occasions in two distinctive environments (sessions 1-4). One group of subjects (paired group, n = 19) received amphetamine consistently in one room and placebo in another room, whereas a second group (unpaired group, n = 12) received amphetamine and placebo without regard to room. During the sessions, participants completed questionnaires to rate their mood. On the fifth session, they rated their preference for the two rooms.

Results: Individuals in the paired group rated their liking of the amphetamine-paired room significantly higher than the placebo-associated room, whereas there was no difference between ratings of the two rooms for individuals in the unpaired group. In the paired group, drug-liking ratings during the conditioning sessions positively predicted preference for the drug-associated room, whereas reports of amphetamine-induced anxiety and dysphoria negatively predicted room-liking scores.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that humans, like nonhumans, prefer a place associated with amphetamine administration. These findings support the idea that subjective responses to a drug contribute to its ability to establish place conditioning.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Effects of conditioning upon VAS Room Liking scores. Data represent mean ± SEM room liking for (1) placebo- and drug-paired rooms among individuals in the paired conditioning groups and (2) Room 1 and Room 2 among individuals in the unpaired conditioning group.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Partial regression plots showing correlations between room liking and subjective responses to amphetamine among individuals in the paired groups.

References

    1. van der Kooy D. Place Conditioning: A simple and effective method for assessing the motivational properties of drugs. In: Bozarth MA, editor. Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1987. pp. 229–240.
    1. Tzschentke TM. Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference paradigm: a comprehensive review of drug effects, recent progress and new issues. Prog Neurobiol. 1998;56:613–672.
    1. Bozarth MA. Evidence for the rewarding effects of ethanol using the conditioned place preference method. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1990;35:485–487.
    1. Lett BT. Repeated exposures intensify rather than diminish the rewarding effects of amphetamine, morphine, and cocaine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1989;98:357–362.
    1. Hoffman DC. The use of place conditioning in studying the neuropharmacology of drug reinforcement. Brain Res Bull. 1989;23:373–387.
    1. van der Kooy D, Mucha RF, O'Shaughnessy M, Bucenieks P. Reinforcing effects of brain microinjections of morphine revealed by conditioned place preference. Brain Res. 1982;243:107–117.
    1. Carr GD, Fibiger HC, Phillips AG. Conditioned place preference as a measure of drug reward. In: Liebman JM, Cooper SJ, editors. The Neuropharmacological Basis of Reward. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2006. pp. 264–319.
    1. Tzschentke TM. Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addict Biol. 2007;12:227–462.
    1. Bardo MT, Bevins RA. Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2000;153:31–43.
    1. Chutuape MA, de Wit H. Relationship between subjective effects and drug preferences: ethanol and diazepam. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1994;34:243–251.
    1. de Wit H, Griffiths RR. Testing the abuse liability of anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1991;28:83–111.
    1. de Wit H, Phan L. Positive reinforcement theories of drug use. In: Kassel JD, editor. Substance Abuse and Emotion. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; in press.
    1. de Wit H, Uhlenhuth EH, Johanson CE. Individual differences in the reinforcing and subjective effects of amphetamine and diazepam. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1986;16:341–360.
    1. Fischman MW, Foltin RW. Utility of subjective-effects measurements in assessing abuse liability of drugs in humans. Br J Addict. 1991;86:1563–1570.
    1. Johanson CE, Uhlenhuth EH. Drug preferences in humans. Fed Proc. 1982;41:228–233.
    1. Lamb RJ, Preston KL, Schindler CW, Meisch RA, Davis F, Katz JL, et al. The reinforcing and subjective effects of morphine in post-addicts: a dose-response study. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1991;259:1165–1173.
    1. Spyraki C, Fibiger HC, Phillips AG. Dopaminergic substrates of amphetamine-induced place preference conditioning. Brain Res. 1982;253:185–193.
    1. APA. American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry. 4th. Washinton DC: APA; 1994.
    1. McNair D, Lorr M, Droppleman L. Profile of Mood States. San Diego: Eduational and Industrial Testing Service; 1971.
    1. Martin WR, Sloan JW, Sapira JD, Jasinski DR. Physiologic, subjective, and behavioral effects of amphetamine, methamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine, and methylphenidate in man. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 1971;12:245–258.
    1. Johanson CE, Uhlenhuth EH. Drug preference and mood in humans: diazepam. Psychopharmacology. 1980;71:269–273.
    1. Cunningham CL, Ferree NK, Howard MA. Apparatus bias and place conditioning with ethanol in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;170:409–422.
    1. Cunningham CL, Gremel CM, Groblewski PA. Drug-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:1662–1670.
    1. Nomikos GG, Spyraki C. Cocaine-induced place conditioning: importance of route of administration and other procedural variables. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1988;94:119–125.
    1. Cervo L, Rossi C, Samanin R. Clonidine-induced place preference is mediated by alpha 2-adrenoceptors outside the locus coeruleus. Eur J Pharmacol. 1993;238:201–207.
    1. Schechter MD. Cocaethylene produces conditioned place preference in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1995;51:549–552.
    1. Schenk S, Ellison F, Hunt T, Amit Z. An examination of heroin conditioning in preferred and nonpreferred environments and in differentially housed mature and immature rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1985;22:215–220.
    1. Brielmaier JM, McDonald CG, Smith RF. Nicotine place preference in a biased conditioned place preference design. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2008;89:94–100.
    1. Evans SM, Griffiths RR, de Wit H. Preference for diazepam, but not buspirone, in moderate drinkers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1996;123:154–163.
    1. Roache JD, Meisch RA, Henningfield JE, Jaffe JH, Klein S, Sampson A. Reinforcing effects of triazolam in sedative abusers: correlation of drug liking and self-administration measures. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1995;50:171–179.
    1. Dlugos A, Freitag C, Hohoff C, McDonald J, Cook EH, Deckert J, et al. Norepinephrine transporter gene variation modulates acute response to D-amphetamine. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;61:1296–1305.
    1. Gabbay FH. Variations in affect following amphetamine and placebo: markers of stimulant drug preference. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003;11:91–101.
    1. Lott DC, Kim SJ, Cook EH, Jr, de Wit H. Dopamine transporter gene associated with diminished subjective response to amphetamine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:602–609.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner