Intravenous nicotine and caffeine: subjective and physiological effects in cocaine abusers
Garrett BE, Griffiths RR
The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 26 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- National Institute on Drug Abuse
- Gobierno
- NIDA NIH HHS
- Subvenciones
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA03890)
Según 2 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2001-02-01 · J Pharmacol Exp Ther · vol. 296 · número 2 · págs. 486–494
- Editorial
- American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
- Citado
- 38 citas · más que el 85% de estudios similares · 1.8× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 39 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Coffee research and impacts · Smoking Behavior and Cessation · Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Palabras clave
- cocaine abusers, subjective drug effects, physiological effects, stimulant effects, skin temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, mood-altering drugs
- MeSH
- humans, cocaine-related disorders, nicotine, caffeine, nicotinic agonists, central nervous system stimulants, injections, intravenous, double-blind method, skin temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, dose-response relationship, drug, adult, female, male, surveys and questionnaires
2 autores
- Bridgette E. Garrett🇺🇸Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine; National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
- Roland R. Griffiths🇺🇸 · autor de correspondenciaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention; Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine; National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
The subjective and physiological effects of intravenously administered caffeine and nicotine were compared in nine subjects with histories of using caffeine, tobacco, and cocaine. Subjects abstained from tobacco cigarette smoking for at least 8 h before each session. Dietary caffeine was eliminated throughout the study; however, to maintain consistency with the nicotine intake, subjects were administered caffeine (150 mg/70 kg b.i.d.) in capsules, with the last dose administered 15 to 18 h before each session. Under double-blind conditions, subjects received placebo, caffeine (100, 200, and 400 mg/70 kg), and nicotine (0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/70 kg) in mixed order. Physiological and subjective data were collected before and repeatedly after drug or placebo administration. Compared with the highest dose of caffeine, the highest dose of nicotine produced greater subjective ratings on a number of scales. At doses that produced comparable ratings of drug effect (1.5 mg/70 kg of nicotine and 400 mg/70 kg of caffeine), both drugs produced similar increases in ratings of good effect, liking, high, stimulated, and bad effect. Nicotine showed a somewhat faster time to peak subjective effects than caffeine (2 versus 4 min). Subjective ratings that differentiated caffeine and nicotine were ratings of rush, blurry vision, and stimulant identification (elevated by nicotine) and ratings of unusual smell and/or taste (elevated by caffeine). Both caffeine and nicotine decreased skin temperature and increased diastolic blood pressure; however, caffeine decreased whereas nicotine increased heart rate. The study documents both striking similarities and some notable differences between caffeine and nicotine, which are among the most widely used mood-altering drugs.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.