BACKGROUND:Atomoxetine is a non-amphetamine medication approved to treat ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Previous studies demonstrated low abuse potential for atomoxetine in recreational drug users. This study assessed the abuse potential of atomoxetine in stimulant-preferring drug abusers compared to methylphenidate and phentermine as positive controls and desipramine and placebo as negative controls. METHODS:Forty male and female, 32-53 years old stimulant-preferring drug abusers completed this balanced Latin-square designed study. Subjects received acute, double-blind doses of placebo, desipramine (100 and 200 mg), methylphenidate (90 mg), phentermine (60 mg), and atomoxetine (45, 90, and 180 mg). Subjective and physiological effects were collected for 24 h following each drug treatment. RESULTS:Methylphenidate and phentermine were liked significantly more than placebo, atomoxetine, or desipramine. No atomoxetine dose was liked significantly more than placebo and liking scores for atomoxetine were similar to, or significantly lower than, desipramine, as assessed by the Drug Rating Questionnaire-Subject. While atomoxetine 45 and 180 mg did not significantly change any Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) scores, atomoxetine 90 mg significantly increased A and BG stimulant scores of the ARCI and both methylphenidate and phentermine produced greater A and BG increases than any atomoxetine dose and also increased MBG (euphoria) scores relative to placebo. CONCLUSIONS:Atomoxetine has significantly less abuse liability than methylphenidate or phentermine and no greater abuse liability than desipramine.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Atomoxetine is a non-amphetamine medication approved to treat ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Previous studies demonstrated low abuse potential for atomoxetine in recreational drug users. This study assessed the abuse potential of atomoxetine in stimulant-preferring drug abusers compared to methylphenidate and phentermine as positive controls and desipramine and placebo as negative controls. METHODS: Forty male and female, 32-53 years old stimulant-preferring drug abusers completed this balanced Latin-square designed study. Subjects received acute, double-blind doses of placebo, desipramine (100 and 200 mg), methylphenidate (90 mg), phentermine (60 mg), and atomoxetine (45, 90, and 180 mg). Subjective and physiological effects were collected for 24 h following each drug treatment. RESULTS:Methylphenidate and phentermine were liked significantly more than placebo, atomoxetine, or desipramine. No atomoxetine dose was liked significantly more than placebo and liking scores for atomoxetine were similar to, or significantly lower than, desipramine, as assessed by the Drug Rating Questionnaire-Subject. While atomoxetine 45 and 180 mg did not significantly change any Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) scores, atomoxetine 90 mg significantly increased A and BG stimulant scores of the ARCI and both methylphenidate and phentermine produced greater A and BG increases than any atomoxetine dose and also increased MBG (euphoria) scores relative to placebo. CONCLUSIONS:Atomoxetine has significantly less abuse liability than methylphenidate or phentermine and no greater abuse liability than desipramine.
Authors: David I Appel; Bryan Brinda; John S Markowitz; Jeffrey H Newcorn; Hao-Jie Zhu Journal: Biomed Chromatogr Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 1.902
Authors: William W Stoops; Michelle R Lofwall; Paul A Nuzzo; Lori B Craig; Anthony J Siegel; Sharon L Walsh Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Richard S Schottenfeld; Marek C Chawarski; Mehmet Sofuoglu; Weng-Tink Chooi; Norzarina M Zaharim; M Azhar M Yasin; Imran Ahmad; Sharifah Zubaidiah Syed Jaapar; B Kasinather Vicknasingam Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Warren K Bickel; Matthew W Johnson; Mikhail N Koffarnus; James MacKillop; James G Murphy Journal: Annu Rev Clin Psychol Date: 2014 Impact factor: 18.561
Authors: Sandra J J Kooij; Susanne Bejerot; Andrew Blackwell; Herve Caci; Miquel Casas-Brugué; Pieter J Carpentier; Dan Edvinsson; John Fayyad; Karin Foeken; Michael Fitzgerald; Veronique Gaillac; Ylva Ginsberg; Chantal Henry; Johanna Krause; Michael B Lensing; Iris Manor; Helmut Niederhofer; Carlos Nunes-Filipe; Martin D Ohlmeier; Pierre Oswald; Stefano Pallanti; Artemios Pehlivanidis; Josep A Ramos-Quiroga; Maria Rastam; Doris Ryffel-Rawak; Steven Stes; Philip Asherson Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2010-09-03 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Sharon L Walsh; Lisa S Middleton; Conrad J Wong; Paul A Nuzzo; Charles L Campbell; Craig R Rush; Michelle R Lofwall Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Louis Cantilena; Roberta Kahn; Connie C Duncan; Shou-Hua Li; Ann Anderson; Ahmed Elkashef Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.702