This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study was designed to identify which pharmacodynamic parameters most accurately quantify the effects of delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the predominantly psychoactive component of cannabis. In addition, we investigated the acceptability and usefulness of a novel mode of intrapulmonary THC administration using a Volcano vaporizer and pure THC instead of cannabis. Rising doses of THC (2, 4, 6 and 8 mg) or vehicle were administered with 90 minutes intervals to twelve healthy males using a Volcano vaporizer. Very low between-subject variability was observed in THC plasma concentrations, characterising the Volcano vaporizer as a suitable method for the administration of THC. Heart rate showed a sharp increase and rapid decline after each THC administration (8 mg: 19.4 bpm: 95% CI 13.2, 25.5). By contrast, dose dependent effects of body sway (8 mg: 108.5%: 95% CI 72.2%, 152.4%) and different subjective parameters did not return to baseline between doses (Visual Analogue Scales of 'alertness' (8 mg: -33.6 mm: 95% CI -41.6, -25.7), 'feeling high' (8 mg: 1.09 U: 95% CI 0.85, 1.33), 'external perception' (8 mg: 0.62 U: 95% CI 0.37, 0.86)). PK/PD-modeling of heart rate displayed a relatively short equilibration half-life of 7.68 min. CNS parameters showed equilibration half-lives ranging between 39.4 - 84.2 min. Some EEG-frequency bands, and pupil size showed small changes following the highest dose of THC. No changes were seen in saccadic eye movements, smooth pursuit and adaptive tracking performance. These results may be applicable in the development of novel cannabinoid agonists and antagonists, and in studies of the pharmacology and physiology of cannabinoid systems in humans.

TPA023, a GABA(A) alpha2,3 alphasubtype-selective partial agonist, is expected to have comparable anxiolytic efficacy as benzodiazepines with reduced sedating effects. The compound lacks efficacy at the alpha1 subtype, which is believed to mediate these effects. This study investigated the effects of 0.5 and 1.5 mg TPA023 and compared them with placebo and lorazepam 2 mg (therapeutic anxiolytic dose). Twelve healthy male volunteers participated in this placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, four-way, cross-over study. Saccadic eye movements and visual analogue scales (VAS) were used to assess the sedative properties of TPA023. The effects on posturaL stability and cognition were assessed using body sway and a standardized battery of neurophysiological memory tests. Lorazepam caused a significant reduction in saccadic peak velocity, the VAS alertness score and impairment of memory and body sway. TPA023 had significant dose dependent effects on saccadic peak velocity (85 deg/sec maximum reduction at the higher dose) that approximated the effects of lorazepam. In contrast to lorazepam, TPA023 had no detectabLe effects on saccadic latency or inaccuracy. Also unlike lorazepam, TPA023 did not affect VAS alertness, memory or body sway. These results show that the effect profile of TPA023 differs markedly from that of lorazepam, at doses that were equipotent with regard to effects on saccadic peak veLocity. Contrary to lorazepam, TPA023 caused no detectable memory impairment or postural imbalance. These differences reflect the selectivity of TPA023 for different GABA(A) receptor subtypes.

Various methods are used to quantify sedative drug effects, but it is unknown how these surrogate measures relate to clinically relevant sleepiness. This study assessed the sensitivity of different surrogates of sedation to clinically relevant sleepiness induced by sleep deprivation. Nine healthy volunteers completed a balanced three-way cross-over study with 1-week wash-out periods. Adaptive tracking, smooth-pursuit and saccadic eye movements, body sway, digit symbol substitution (DSST), visual analogue scales (VAS) and electroencephalograms (EEG) were evaluated on three occasions: (1) during the day after normal sleep, (2) during wakefulness at night; and (3) during the day after a night of sleep deprivation. VAS of alertness showed a gradual decline at night and a constant average reduction of 38 percent [95% Confidence intervals (CI), 28-47%] during the day after sleep deprivation. Average mood scores diminished by 14 percent (95%, CI 2-24%) during the day after sleep deprivation. Adaptive tracking, saccadic eye movements and body sway tended to deteriorate at night, but overall this was not statistically significant. After a night of sleep deprivation, adaptive tracking decreased by 21 percent (95% CI, 11-30%), saccadic eye movements decreased by 9-10 percent (95% CI, 5-13%/6-15%) and body sway increased by 37 percent (95% CI, 5-79%). In contrast, EEG beta2-amplitudes declined significantly at night by 18 percent (95% CI, 6-29%), without changes during the day after sleep deprivation. Smooth pursuit, DSST and other EEG-amplitudes remained unchanged. These results emphasize that reductions in adaptive tracking, saccadic peak velocity and body sway caused by sedative drugs really reflect sedation. They also provide a level of clinical significance for these surrogates of sedation. EEG parameters and smooth pursuit were unaffected by sleep deprivation, so drug-induced changes in these measures may not reflect sedation in a stricter sense. The motivation and alertness necessary for DSST may overcome mild sedation.

Benzodiazepines are effective short-term treatments for anxiety disorders, but their use is limited by undesirable side effects related to Central Nervous System impairment and tolerance development. SL65.1498 is a new compound that acts in vitro as a full agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid(A) 2 and 3 receptor and as a partial agonist at the 1 and 5 receptor subtypes. It is thought that the compound could be anxiolytic by its activation at the alpha2 and alpha3 receptor subtypes, without causing unfavourable side effects, which are believed to be mediated by the alpha1 and alpha5 subtypes. This study was a double-blind, five-way cross-over study to investigate the effects of three doses of SL65.1498 in comparison with placebo and lorazepam 2 mg in healthy volunteers. The objective was to select a dose level (expected to be therapeutically active), free of any significant deleterious effect. Psychomotor and cognitive effects were measured using a validated battery of measurements, including eye movements, body sway, memory tests, reaction-time assessments, and visual analogue scales. The highest dose of SL65.1498 showed slight effects on saccadic peak velocity and smooth pursuit performance, although to a much lesser extent than lorazepam. In contrast to lorazepam, none of the SL65.1498 doses affected body sway, visual analogue scale alertness, attention, or memory tests. This study showed that the three doses of SL65.1498 were well tolerated and induced no impairments on memory, sedation, psychomotor, and cognitive functions.

AimsStudies of novel centrally acting drugs in healthy volunteers are traditionally concerned with kinetics and tolerability, but useful information may also be obtained from biomarkers of clinical endpoints. This paper provides a systematic overview of CNStests used with SSRIs in healthy subjects. A useful biomarker should meet the following requirements: a consistent response across studies and drugs; a clear response of the biomarker to a therapeutic dose; a dose-response relationship; a plausible relationship between biomarker, pharmacology and pathogenesis. MethodsThese criteria were applied to all individual tests found in studies of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), performed in healthy subjects since 1966, identified with a systematic MedLine search. Separate databases were created to evaluate the effects of single or multiple dose SSRI-studies, and for amitriptyline whenever the original report included this antidepressant as a positive control. Doses of the antidepressant were divided into high-and low-dose ranges, relative to a medium range of therapeutic doses. For each test, the drug effects were scored as statistically significant impairment/ decrease (-), improvement/increase ( + ) or no change ( = ) relative to placebo.Results 56 single dose studies and 22 multiple dose studies were identified, investigating the effects of 13 different SSRIs on 171 variants of neuropsychological tests, which could be clustered into seven neuropsychological domains. Low single doses of SSRIs generally stimulated tests of attention and memory. High doses tended to impair visual/auditory and visuomotor systems and subjective per formance, while showing an acceleration in motor function. The most pronounced effects were observed using tests that measure flicker discrimination (improvement at low doses: 75%, medium doses: 40%, high doses: 43% of studies); REM sleep (inconsistent decrease after medium doses, decrease in 83% of studies after high doses); and EEG recordings, predominantly in alpha (decrease in 60% and 43% of studies after low and medium doses, respectively) and in theta activity (increase in 43% and 33% of studies after medium and high doses, respectively). Amitriptyline generally impaired central nervous system (CNS) functions, which increased with doses. Multiple doses caused less pronounced effects on the reported tests. The most responsive tests to amitriptyline appeared to be EEG alpha and theta, and REM sleep duration. ConclusionsSSRIs in healthy subjects appear to cause slight stimulating effects after low doses, which tend to diminish with dose. The most consistent effects were observed with flicker discrimination tests, EEG (alpha and beta bands), REM sleep duration, and subjective effects at higher doses. These effects are small compared with amitriptyline and other CNS-active drugs. Multiple dosing with SSRIs caused even fewer measur-G. J. H. Dumont et al. 49659 :5 Br J Clin Pharmacol

1 Twelve healthy male volunteers received phenytoin 0.5 and 1 g, lamotrigine (a new anticonvulsant) 120 and 240 mg, diazepam 10 mg and placebo orally in a double-blind, cross-over, randomized trial.2 Maximum drug concentrations at 4 h, measured in plasma were 11.5 + 2.2 ,ug ml-' for phenytoin and 2.7 + 0.4 ,ug ml-' for lamotrigine. These levels were in the therapeutic range for phenytoin and the putative therapeutic range for lamotrigine.3 Side effects after diazepam (mainly sedation) and phenytoin (mainly unsteadiness) differed markedly from lamotrigine which produced no important side effects. Subjective effects as measured by visual analogue scales were caused by phenytoin and diazepam but not by lamotrigine. 4 Diazepam impaired eye movements, adaptive tracking and body sway. Phenytoin impaired adaptive tracking, increased body sway and impaired smooth pursuit eye movement. Lamotrigine produced only a possible slight increase in body sway. 5 There were significant correlations between performance and saliva levels of phenytoin and diazepam. 6 It was concluded that the tests used were suitable for monitoring CNS effects of anticonvulsants and that lamotrigine possibly could have a more favourable CNS side effect profile than phenytoin.

CB1 antagonists such as AVE1625 are potentially useful in the treatment of obesity, smoking cessation and cognitive impairment. Proof of pharmacological action of AVE1625 in the brain can be given by antagonising the effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a CB1/CB2 agonist. Inhibition of THC-induced effects by AVE1625 was observed on Visual Analogue Scales 'alertness', 'feeling high', 'external perception', 'body sway' and 'heart rate'. Even the lowest dose of AVE1625 20 mg inhibited most of THC-induced effects. AVE1625 did not have any effect on psychological and behavioural parameters or heart rate by itself. After THC and AVE1625 administration, changes on electroencephalography were observed. This study shows a useful method for studying the effects of CB1 antagonists. AVE1625 penetrates the brain and antagonises THC-induced effects with doses at or above 20 mg.

Central Nervous System (CNS) effects of talnetant, an NK-3 antagonist in development for schizophrenia, were compared to those of haloperidol and placebo. The study was randomised, double-blind, three-way crossover of talnetant 200 mg, haloperidol 3 mg or placebo. Twelve healthy males participated and EEG, saccadic and smooth pursuit eye movements, adaptive tracking, body sway, finger tapping, hormones, visual analogue scales (VAS) for alertness, mood and calmness and psychedelic effects, left/right distraction task, Tower of London and Visual and Verbal Learning Task were assessed. Haloperidol showed (difference to placebo; 95% CI; p-value) decreases in EEG alpha power (-0.87microV; -1.51/-0.22; p = 0.0110), saccadic inaccuracy (2.0%; 0.5/3.6; p = 0.0133), smooth pursuit eye movements (-7.5%; -12.0/-3.0; p = 0.0026), adaptive tracking (-3.5%; -5.4/-1.7; p = 0.0009), alertness (-6.8 mm; -11.1/-2.4; p = 0.0039), negative mood (-4.6 mm; -8.6/-0.6; p = 0.0266), the ability to control thoughts (1.2 mm; 0.2/2.3; p = 0.0214), and an increase of serum prolactin (ratio 4.1; 3.0/5.6; p < 0.0001). Talnetant showed decreased alpha power (-0.69 muV; -1.34/-0.04; p = 0.0390), improved adaptive tracking (1.9%; 0.1/3.7; p = 0.0370) and reduced calmness on VAS Bond and Lader (-4.5 mm; -8.0/-1.0; p = 0.0151). Haloperidol effects were predominantly CNS-depressant, while those of talnetant were slightly stimulatory. The results suggest that talnetant penetrates the brain, but it remains to be established whether this dose is sufficient and whether the observed effect profile is class-specific for NK3-antagonists.