Testing the abuse liability of anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs in humans

https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-8716(91)90054-3Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper represents a comprehensive review of laboratory studies investigating the abuse liability of anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs in humans. The subjective effects of these drugs, most of which are either barbiturates or benzodiazepines, have been measured using various self-report questionnaires and their reinforcing effects have been studied using self-administration and choice procedures. Studies using both subjective and reinforcing effects reveal orderly relations between the two main chemical classes of anxiolytic/hypnotics (e.g. barbiturates are associated with higher abuse liability than benzodiazepines), between different doses of the drugs (e.g. higher doses are usually associated with higher abuse liability) and among different compounds within a class. The subjective and reinforcing effects of barbiturates and benzodiazepines depend critically upon the subject populations that are tested and it is argued that individuals with histories of drug abuse provide a more sensitive indicator of abuse liability than healthy volunteers. Several principles of abuse liability testing are discussed, including the selection of an appropriate subject population, the use of blind drug administration procedures, the comparison of a test compound to an appropriate standard, the inclusion of a placebo and a wide range of doses of the test drug and the use of multiple measures of likelihood of abuse.

References (81)

  • S. Apelt et al.

    Preference for alprazolam as opposed to diazepam in benzodiazepine-dependent psychiatric inpatients

    Pharmacopsychiatry

    (1990)
  • R. Balmer et al.

    Longterm treatment with diazepam

    Int. Pharmacopsychiatry

    (1981)
  • L.P.d.C. Bechelli et al.

    Comparison of the reinforcing properties of zopiclone and triazolam in former alcoholics

    Pharmacology

    (1983)
  • H.K. Beecher

    Euphoria, dysphoria. Measurement of Subjective Responses

  • K. Boissl et al.

    Studies on the dependence-inducing potential of zopiclone and triazolam

    Pharmacology

    (1983)
  • H. Cappell et al.

    Drug deprivation and reinforcement by diazepam in a dependent population

    Psychopharmacology

    (1987)
  • H.D. Cappell et al.

    Benzodiazepines as drugs of abuse and dependence

  • D.A. Ciraulo et al.

    Parental alcoholism as a risk factor in benzodiazepine abuse: a pilot study

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (1989)
  • D.A. Ciraulo et al.

    Abuse liability and clinical phar-macokinetics of alprazolam in alcoholic men

    J. Clin. Psychiatry

    (1988)
  • D.A. Ciraulo et al.

    Critical review of liability for benzodiazepine abuse among alcoholics

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (1988)
  • J.O. Cole et al.

    Assessment of the abuse liability of buspirone in recreational sedative users

    J. Clin. Psychiatry

    (1982)
  • H. de Wit et al.

    A drug preference procedure for use with human volunteers

  • H. de Wit et al.

    Assessing pentobarbital preference in normal volunteers using a cumulative dosing procedure

    Psychopharmacology

    (1989)
  • H. de Wit et al.

    Lack of preference for diazepam in anxious volunteers

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (1986)
  • H. de Wit et al.

    Drug preference in normal volunteers: effects of age and time of day

    Psychopharmacology

    (1985)
  • H. de Wit et al.

    The reinforcing properties of amphetamine in overweight subjects and subjects with depression

    Clin. Pharmacol. Therapeut.

    (1987)
  • H. de Wit et al.

    Preference for pentobarbital and diazepam in normal volunteer subjects

  • G.G. Dunbar et al.

    Patterns of benzodiazepine use in Great Britain as measured by a general population survey

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (1989)
  • S.M. Evans et al.

    Zolpidem and triazolam in humans: Behavioral and subjective effects and abuse liabiity

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therapeut.

    (1990)
  • L.F. Fabre et al.

    Preference studies of triazolam with standard hypnotics in out-patients with insomnia

    J. Int. Med. Res.

    (1976)
  • H.F. Fraser et al.

    The assessment of the abuse potentiality of sedative/hypnotics (depressants) (methods used in animals and man)

  • H.F. Fraser et al.

    Methods for evaluating addiction liability. (A) ‘Attitude’ of opiate addicts toward opiatelike drugs, (B) A short-term ‘direct’ addiction test

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therapeut.

    (1961)
  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Human drug self-administration: double-blind comparison of pentobarbital, diazepam, chlorpromazine and placebo

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therapeut.

    (1979)
  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Similarities in animal and human drug-taking behavior

  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Drug preference in humans: double-blind choice comparison of pentobarbital, diazepam and placebo

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therapeut.

    (1980)
  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Human sedative self-administration: effects of interingestion interval and dose

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therapeut.

    (1976)
  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Differential effects of diazepam and pentobarbital on mood and behavior

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (1983)
  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Relative abuse liability of diazepam and oxazepam: behavioral and subjective dose effects

    Psychopharmacology

    (1984)
  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Comparison of diazepam and oxazepam: preference, liking and extent of abuse

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therapeut.

    (1984)
  • R.R. Griffiths et al.

    Abuse liability of benzodiazepines: a review of human studies evaluating subjective and/or reinforcing effects

  • Cited by (154)

    • Psychedelic drug abuse potential assessment research for new drug applications and Controlled Substances Act scheduling

      2022, Neuropharmacology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Developing and validating these models would seem best done through a collaboration involving NIDA, FDA, and leading clinical research organizations (CROs) with experience conducting pivotal studies with diverse substances and including input and oversight from an outside Expert Panel of researchers, clinicians, ethicists, and diverse community representatives to develop a modified psychedelic HAP (mp-HAP) approach. Decades of study with variations on the currently recommended HAP model indicates that these studies can substantially advance the understanding of mechanisms of drug action as well as effects that promote use (Jasinski et al., 1984; Jasinski and Henningfield, 1989; de Wit and Griffiths, 1991; Expert Panel, 2003; Griffiths et al., 2003; Carter and Griffiths, 2009). However, as discussed in this article elements of HAP design recommended in FDA’s 2017 Guidance may not be safe and its focus on peak liking may not capture the diverse effects of psychedelics that may serve both to limit compulsive use and abuse, but may also contribute to reasons for use beyond getting high and experiencing euphoria.

    • Opioid abusers' ability to differentiate an opioid from placebo in laboratory challenge testing

      2013, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
      Citation Excerpt :

      This phenomenon is not limited to opioids. Evidence exists that some drug abusers fail to differentiate between placebo and amphetamine (Shram et al., 2011; Johanson and Preston, 1998; Duke et al., 2011), and similarly sedatives (De Wit and Griffiths, 1991). Future studies may examine other drug classes (e.g., cannabinoids) for this phenomenon and attempt to determine if the current results would be replicated in prescription opioid abusers (vs. the mixed prescription opioid and heroin users in the present study).

    • Do initial responses to drugs predict future use or abuse?

      2012, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text