4.5 Article

Self-administration of (+)-methamphetamine and (+)-pseudoephedrine, alone and combined, by rhesus monkeys

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 198-202

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2010.01.005

关键词

(+)-methampheramihe; (+)-pseudoephedrine; Rhesus monkey; Self-administration; Progressive-ratio

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01 DA-01947]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(+)-Methamphetamine (MA) is an illicit psychostimulant that can be synthesized from the nonprescription nasal decongestant, (+)-pseudoephedrine (PE). While MA is widely abused, PE appears to have little or no abuse liability in currently available formulations. However, PE produces centrally-mediated dopaminergic effects that are linked to the reinforcing effects of MA and other illicit psychostimulants and has been reported to function as a positive reinforcer in non-human primates. There has yet to be an assessment of the relative reinforcing effects of MA and PE. Therefore, the current study compared the reinforcing potency and strength of MA and PE, alone and combined, in four rhesus monkeys that were allowed to self-administer MA (0.003-0.3 mg/kg/inj), PE (0.1-3.0 mg/kg/inj), or combinations of the two under a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. (+)-Methamphetamine functioned as a positive reinforcer in a dose-dependent manner. (+)-Pseudoephedrine also functioned as a positive reinforcer, but was less potent than MA. There were no differences in maximum injections between MA, PE, or any of the combinations of the two. Dose-addition analysis and the interaction index indicated that combinations of PE and MA were either additive or sub-additive in their reinforcing effects. These results suggest that, while MA is a more potent reinforcer than PE, the two drugs arc comparable in terms of reinforcing strength. However, MA and PE do not appear to interact in a manner that enhances their relative reinforcing effects. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据