Margaret Haney1, Eric Rubin2, Rebecca K Denson3, Richard W Foltin3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, USA. Electronic address: mh235@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Harlem Hospital Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The absence of an FDA-approved medication for the treatment of cocaine use disorder (CUD) may, in part, reflect the varying conditions present when the decision to use cocaine is made, with one medication unlikely to work under all conditions. The objective of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, human laboratory study was to test the effects of modafinil, a medication with mixed efficacy for the treatment of CUD, using a novel self-administration procedure designed to model distinct clinical scenarios. METHODS: During modafinil maintenance (0, 300 mg/day), participants chose to self-administer up to 7 doses of smoked cocaine (25 mg) under 9 conditions: immediately after exposure to: (a) cues associated with cocaine and a non-contingent cocaine administration, i.e. 'prime' (25 mg), (b) only cocaine cues, and (c) neither cues nor cocaine. Each condition was tested when self-administered cocaine cost $5, $10 and $15/dose. RESULTS: Nontreatment-seeking cocaine smokers (3 F,13 M), spending $388 ± 218/week on cocaine and with no history of alcohol use disorder, completed the study. Relative to placebo, modafinil robustly attenuated self-administration when cocaine was expensive ($10,$15/dose) and when there was no 'prime.' Modafinil had no effect on self-administration when cocaine was inexpensive ($5/dose) or when participants received a 'prime.' CONCLUSIONS: Modafinil's effects on cocaine-taking varied substantially as a function of recent cocaine exposure and cost, which may help explain the mixed clinical findings. Modafinil may be most effective for preventing relapse in abstinent patients, particularly under conditions in which cocaine is costly, rather than initiating abstinence for those continuing to use cocaine.
BACKGROUND: The absence of an FDA-approved medication for the treatment of cocaine use disorder (CUD) may, in part, reflect the varying conditions present when the decision to use cocaine is made, with one medication unlikely to work under all conditions. The objective of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, human laboratory study was to test the effects of modafinil, a medication with mixed efficacy for the treatment of CUD, using a novel self-administration procedure designed to model distinct clinical scenarios. METHODS: During modafinil maintenance (0, 300 mg/day), participants chose to self-administer up to 7 doses of smoked cocaine (25 mg) under 9 conditions: immediately after exposure to: (a) cues associated with cocaine and a non-contingent cocaine administration, i.e. 'prime' (25 mg), (b) only cocaine cues, and (c) neither cues nor cocaine. Each condition was tested when self-administered cocaine cost $5, $10 and $15/dose. RESULTS: Nontreatment-seeking cocaine smokers (3 F,13 M), spending $388 ± 218/week on cocaine and with no history of alcohol use disorder, completed the study. Relative to placebo, modafinil robustly attenuated self-administration when cocaine was expensive ($10,$15/dose) and when there was no 'prime.' Modafinil had no effect on self-administration when cocaine was inexpensive ($5/dose) or when participants received a 'prime.' CONCLUSIONS: Modafinil's effects on cocaine-taking varied substantially as a function of recent cocaine exposure and cost, which may help explain the mixed clinical findings. Modafinil may be most effective for preventing relapse in abstinent patients, particularly under conditions in which cocaine is costly, rather than initiating abstinence for those continuing to use cocaine.
Authors: Bertha K Madras; Zhihua Xie; Zhicheng Lin; Amy Jassen; Helen Panas; Laurie Lynch; Ryan Johnson; Eli Livni; Thomas J Spencer; Ali A Bonab; Gregory M Miller; Alan J Fischman Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2006-08-02 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Stephen V Mahler; Megan Hensley-Simon; Pouya Tahsili-Fahadan; Ryan T LaLumiere; Charles Thomas; Rebecca V Fallon; Peter W Kalivas; Gary Aston-Jones Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Charles A Dackis; Kyle M Kampman; Kevin G Lynch; Helen M Pettinati; Charles P O'Brien Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Robert Malcolm; Karla Swayngim; Jennifer L Donovan; C Lindsay DeVane; Ahmed Elkashef; Nora Chiang; Roberta Khan; Jurij Mojsiak; Donald L Myrick; Sarra Hedden; Kristi Cochran; Robert F Woolson Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Bradford Martins; Will Rutland; Joao P De Aquino; Benjamin L Kazer; Melissa Funaro; Marc N Potenza; Gustavo A Angarita Journal: Curr Addict Rep Date: 2022-08-15