Sridhar Ramakrishnan1, Nancy J Wesensten2, Gary H Kamimori3, James E Moon3, Thomas J Balkin3, Jaques Reifman1. 1. Department of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick, MD. 2. Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC. 3. Behavioral Biology Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Existing mathematical models of neurobehavioral performance cannot predict the beneficial effects of caffeine across the spectrum of sleep loss conditions, limiting their practical utility. Here, we closed this research gap by integrating a model of caffeine effects with the recently validated unified model of performance (UMP) into a single, unified modeling framework. We then assessed the accuracy of this new UMP in predicting performance across multiple studies. METHODS: We hypothesized that the pharmacodynamics of caffeine vary similarly during both wakefulness and sleep, and that caffeine has a multiplicative effect on performance. Accordingly, to represent the effects of caffeine in the UMP, we multiplied a dose-dependent caffeine factor (which accounts for the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of caffeine) to the performance estimated in the absence of caffeine. We assessed the UMP predictions in 14 distinct laboratory- and field-study conditions, including 7 different sleep-loss schedules (from 5 h of sleep per night to continuous sleep loss for 85 h) and 6 different caffeine doses (from placebo to repeated 200 mg doses to a single dose of 600 mg). RESULTS: The UMP accurately predicted group-average psychomotor vigilance task performance data across the different sleep loss and caffeine conditions (6% < error < 27%), yielding greater accuracy for mild and moderate sleep loss conditions than for more severe cases. Overall, accounting for the effects of caffeine resulted in improved predictions (after caffeine consumption) by up to 70%. CONCLUSIONS: The UMP provides the first comprehensive tool for accurate selection of combinations of sleep schedules and caffeine countermeasure strategies to optimize neurobehavioral performance.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Existing mathematical models of neurobehavioral performance cannot predict the beneficial effects of caffeine across the spectrum of sleep loss conditions, limiting their practical utility. Here, we closed this research gap by integrating a model of caffeine effects with the recently validated unified model of performance (UMP) into a single, unified modeling framework. We then assessed the accuracy of this new UMP in predicting performance across multiple studies. METHODS: We hypothesized that the pharmacodynamics of caffeine vary similarly during both wakefulness and sleep, and that caffeine has a multiplicative effect on performance. Accordingly, to represent the effects of caffeine in the UMP, we multiplied a dose-dependent caffeine factor (which accounts for the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of caffeine) to the performance estimated in the absence of caffeine. We assessed the UMP predictions in 14 distinct laboratory- and field-study conditions, including 7 different sleep-loss schedules (from 5 h of sleep per night to continuous sleep loss for 85 h) and 6 different caffeine doses (from placebo to repeated 200 mg doses to a single dose of 600 mg). RESULTS: The UMP accurately predicted group-average psychomotor vigilance task performance data across the different sleep loss and caffeine conditions (6% < error < 27%), yielding greater accuracy for mild and moderate sleep loss conditions than for more severe cases. Overall, accounting for the effects of caffeine resulted in improved predictions (after caffeine consumption) by up to 70%. CONCLUSIONS: The UMP provides the first comprehensive tool for accurate selection of combinations of sleep schedules and caffeine countermeasure strategies to optimize neurobehavioral performance.
Authors: Gary H Kamimori; Chetan S Karyekar; Ronald Otterstetter; Donna S Cox; Thomas J Balkin; Gregory L Belenky; Natalie D Eddington Journal: Int J Pharm Date: 2002-03-02 Impact factor: 5.875
Authors: Elissa B Klaassen; Renate H M de Groot; Elisabeth A T Evers; Jan Snel; Enno C I Veerman; Antoon J M Ligtenberg; Jelle Jolles; Dick J Veltman Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Tom M McLellan; Gary H Kamimori; Douglas G Bell; Ingrid F Smith; Dagny Johnson; Gregory Belenky Journal: Aviat Space Environ Med Date: 2005-01
Authors: D Penetar; U McCann; D Thorne; G Kamimori; C Galinski; H Sing; M Thomas; G Belenky Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 1993 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: William D S Killgore; Ellen T Kahn-Greene; Nancy L Grugle; Desiree B Killgore; Thomas J Balkin Journal: Sleep Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Devon A Hansen; Sridhar Ramakrishnan; Brieann C Satterfield; Nancy J Wesensten; Matthew E Layton; Jaques Reifman; Hans P A Van Dongen Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jaques Reifman; Kamal Kumar; Luke Hartman; Andrew Frock; Tracy J Doty; Thomas J Balkin; Sridhar Ramakrishnan; Francisco G Vital-Lopez Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 5.428