John R Smethells1, Natashia L Swalve2, Lynn E Eberly3, Marilyn E Carroll2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. jsmethells@gmail.com. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. 3. Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Impulsive choice, or an inability to delay immediate gratification, has been strongly linked to the development and persistence of drug abuse. Indeed, delaying drug use itself may underlie drug addiction and relapse. Thus, employing treatments that are efficacious in reducing impulsive choice (atomoxetine; ATO) or drug-seeking behavior (progesterone; PRO) may be an effective means of treating drug addiction. OBJECTIVE: The current study assessed sex differences in the effects of PRO, ATO, and their combination in a delay discounting paradigm for cocaine and for sucrose pellets. METHOD: Male and female rats chose between a small-immediate or a large-delayed (0, 7.5, 15, 30, 60 s) outcome in an impulsive choice procedure for sucrose pellets (1 vs. 3 pellets) or for iv cocaine infusions (0.3 vs. 0.9 mg/kg). Following baseline assessment of impulsive choice, rats received daily treatment of vehicle (VEH), PRO (0.5 mg/kg), ATO (1.5 mg/kg), or a combination (PRO + ATO) until a second assessment of impulsive choice was determined. RESULTS: Compared to the VEH group, females were less impulsive for cocaine following PRO or the PRO + ATO combined treatment, whereas males were less impulsive for cocaine following ATO. No treatment effects were observed on impulsive choice for sucrose pellets. CONCLUSIONS: The present results indicate that impulsive choice for cocaine is reduced by PRO in females and by ATO in males. These findings suggest both treatments may be an effective intervention in treating cocaine abuse, but that their effectiveness differs by sex.
RATIONALE: Impulsive choice, or an inability to delay immediate gratification, has been strongly linked to the development and persistence of drug abuse. Indeed, delaying drug use itself may underlie drug addiction and relapse. Thus, employing treatments that are efficacious in reducing impulsive choice (atomoxetine; ATO) or drug-seeking behavior (progesterone; PRO) may be an effective means of treating drug addiction. OBJECTIVE: The current study assessed sex differences in the effects of PRO, ATO, and their combination in a delay discounting paradigm for cocaine and for sucrose pellets. METHOD: Male and female rats chose between a small-immediate or a large-delayed (0, 7.5, 15, 30, 60 s) outcome in an impulsive choice procedure for sucrose pellets (1 vs. 3 pellets) or for iv cocaine infusions (0.3 vs. 0.9 mg/kg). Following baseline assessment of impulsive choice, rats received daily treatment of vehicle (VEH), PRO (0.5 mg/kg), ATO (1.5 mg/kg), or a combination (PRO + ATO) until a second assessment of impulsive choice was determined. RESULTS: Compared to the VEH group, females were less impulsive for cocaine following PRO or the PRO + ATO combined treatment, whereas males were less impulsive for cocaine following ATO. No treatment effects were observed on impulsive choice for sucrose pellets. CONCLUSIONS: The present results indicate that impulsive choice for cocaine is reduced by PRO in females and by ATO in males. These findings suggest both treatments may be an effective intervention in treating cocaine abuse, but that their effectiveness differs by sex.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cocaine; Delay discounting; Female; Impulsive choice; Rats; Recreational drug use
Authors: Louis A Giordano; Warren K Bickel; George Loewenstein; Eric A Jacobs; Lisa Marsch; Gary J Badger Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2002-07-13 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Marci R Mitchell; Virginia G Weiss; Dominique J Ouimet; Rita A Fuchs; Drake Morgan; Barry Setlow Journal: Behav Neurosci Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 1.912
Authors: Frances R Levin; John J Mariani; Alex Secora; Daniel Brooks; Wendy Y Cheng; Adam Bisaga; Edward Nunes; Efrat Aharonovich; Wilfrid Raby; Grace Hennessy Journal: J Dual Diagn Date: 2009-01-01
Authors: Nienke Broos; Lianne Schmaal; Joost Wiskerke; Lennard Kostelijk; Thomas Lam; Nicky Stoop; Lonneke Weierink; Jannemieke Ham; Eco J C de Geus; Anton N M Schoffelmeer; Wim van den Brink; Dick J Veltman; Taco J de Vries; Tommy Pattij; Anna E Goudriaan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicole L Tosun; Sharon S Allen; Lynn E Eberly; Meng Yao; William W Stoops; Justin C Strickland; Katherine A Harrison; Mustafa al'Absi; Marilyn E Carroll Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Justin R Yates; Nicholas A Prior; Marissa R Chitwood; Haley A Day; Jonah R Heidel; Sarah E Hopkins; Brittany T Muncie; Tatiana A Paradella-Bradley; Alexandra P Sestito; Ashley N Vecchiola; Emily E Wells Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Mehrak Javadi-Paydar; Eric L Harvey; Yanabel Grant; Sophia A Vandewater; Kevin M Creehan; Jacques D Nguyen; Tobin J Dickerson; Michael A Taffe Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jeffrey S Darling; Daniel W Bayless; Lauren R Dartez; Joshua J Taylor; Arjun Mehrotra; William L Smith; Jill M Daniel Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2020-08-02 Impact factor: 3.332