AIMS: The muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist scopolamine is often used for proof-of-pharmacology studies with pro-cognitive compounds. From a pharmacological point of view, it would seem more rational to use a nicotinic rather than a muscarinic anticholinergic challenge to prove pharmacology of a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist. This study aims to characterize a nicotinic anticholinergic challenge model using mecamylamine and to compare it to the scopolamine model. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way cross-over trial, 12 healthy male subjects received oral mecamylamine 10 and 20 mg, intravenous scopolamine 0.5 mg and placebo. Pharmacokinetics were analysed using non-compartmental analysis. Pharmacodynamic effects were measured with a multidimensional test battery that includes neurophysiological, subjective, (visuo)motor and cognitive measurements. RESULTS: All treatments were safe and well tolerated. Mecamylamine had a tmax of 2.5 h and a Cmax of 64.5 ng ml-1 for the 20 mg dose. Mecamylamine had a dose-dependent effect decreasing the adaptive tracking performance and VAS alertness, and increasing the finger tapping and visual verbal learning task performance time and errors. Scopolamine significantly affected almost all pharmacodynamic tests. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that mecamylamine causes nicotinic receptor specific temporary decline in cognitive functioning. Compared with the scopolamine model, pharmacodynamic effects were less pronounced at the dose levels tested; however, mecamylamine caused less sedation. The cognitive effects of scopolamine might at least partly be caused by sedation. Whether the mecamylamine model can be used for proof-of-pharmacology of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists remains to be established.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist scopolamine is often used for proof-of-pharmacology studies with pro-cognitive compounds. From a pharmacological point of view, it would seem more rational to use a nicotinic rather than a muscarinic anticholinergic challenge to prove pharmacology of a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist. This study aims to characterize a nicotinic anticholinergic challenge model using mecamylamine and to compare it to the scopolamine model. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way cross-over trial, 12 healthy male subjects received oral mecamylamine 10 and 20 mg, intravenous scopolamine 0.5 mg and placebo. Pharmacokinetics were analysed using non-compartmental analysis. Pharmacodynamic effects were measured with a multidimensional test battery that includes neurophysiological, subjective, (visuo)motor and cognitive measurements. RESULTS: All treatments were safe and well tolerated. Mecamylamine had a tmax of 2.5 h and a Cmax of 64.5 ng ml-1 for the 20 mg dose. Mecamylamine had a dose-dependent effect decreasing the adaptive tracking performance and VAS alertness, and increasing the finger tapping and visual verbal learning task performance time and errors. Scopolamine significantly affected almost all pharmacodynamic tests. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that mecamylamine causes nicotinic receptor specific temporary decline in cognitive functioning. Compared with the scopolamine model, pharmacodynamic effects were less pronounced at the dose levels tested; however, mecamylamine caused less sedation. The cognitive effects of scopolamine might at least partly be caused by sedation. Whether the mecamylamine model can be used for proof-of-pharmacology of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists remains to be established.
Authors: A L van Steveninck; B N van Berckel; R C Schoemaker; D D Breimer; J M van Gerven; A F Cohen Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Ritchie E Brown; Radhika Basheer; James T McKenna; Robert E Strecker; Robert W McCarley Journal: Physiol Rev Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 37.312
Authors: William Cho; Paul Maruff; John Connell; Cindy Gargano; Nicole Calder; Scott Doran; Sabrina Fox-Bosetti; Aizza Hassan; John Renger; Gary Herman; Christopher Lines; Ajay Verma Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Julia R Ellis; Kathryn A Ellis; Cali F Bartholomeusz; Ben J Harrison; Keith A Wesnes; Fiona F Erskine; Luis Vitetta; Pradeep J Nathan Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2005-05-09 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: S J de Visser; J P van der Post; P P de Waal; F Cornet; A F Cohen; J M A van Gerven Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: S L de Haas; K L Franson; J A J Schmitt; A F Cohen; J B Fau; C Dubruc; J M A van Gerven Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez; Ellen P Hart; Samantha Prins; Marieke de Kam; Joop M A van Gerven; Adam F Cohen; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Alexander C Conley; Kimberly M Albert; Brenna C McDonald; Andrew J Saykin; Julie A Dumas; Paul A Newhouse Journal: Hum Psychopharmacol Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 2.130
Authors: Charlotte Bakker; Jasper van der Aart; Ellen P Hart; Erica S Klaassen; Kirsten R Bergmann; Michiel J van Esdonk; Denis G Kay; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2020-10-13
Authors: Adewale Adeluyi; Lindsey Guerin; Miranda L Fisher; Ashley Galloway; Robert D Cole; Sherine S L Chan; Michael D Wyatt; Shannon W Davis; Linnea R Freeman; Pavel I Ortinski; Jill R Turner Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 14.957
Authors: Anne Catrien Baakman; Carmen Gavan; Lotte van Doeselaar; Marieke de Kam; Karen Broekhuizen; Ovidiu Bajenaru; Laura Camps; Eleonora L Swart; Kees Kalisvaart; Niki Schoonenboom; Evelien Lemstra; Philip Scheltens; Adam Cohen; Joop van Gerven; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Charlotte Bakker; Samantha Prins; Jan Liptrot; Ellen P Hart; Erica S Klaassen; Giles A Brown; Alastair Brown; Miles Congreve; Malcolm Weir; Fiona H Marshall; Jasper Stevens; David M Cross; Tim Tasker; Pradeep J Nathan; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Charlotte Bakker; Michiel J van Esdonk; Rik F E Stuurman; Laura G J M Borghans; Marieke L de Kam; Joop M A van Gerven; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.126