A double blind clinical evaluation of chlorazepate (dipotassium-7-chloro-5-phenyl-2,2-dihydroxy-3-carboxy-1,2-dihydro-2H-1,4-benzodiazepine), diazepam and placebo on a patient group of young students, mean age 25 years, is reported. Both drugs were significantly better than placebo and according to global assessment chlorazepate was superior to diazepam. An analysis of the main target symptom revealed better effects of chlorazepate on the following items: anxiety, feeling of muscular tension and gastro-intestinal disturbances. With respect to irritability and sleep disturbances both drugs were found to be equally effective. In patients' self-ratings chlorazepate was considered superior to diazepam in giving more alertness and less drowsiness during day time. The results are discussed with reference to EEG-studies and pharmaco-kinetic properties of chlorazepate and diazepam. Performance tests in simulated car-driving by healthy volunteers did not demonstrate any significant difference as compared with placebo. The psychophysiological eeffects, however, are more pronounced after diazepam than after chlorazepate medication.
For comparative evaluation of the subjective effects of 50 mg chlorpromazine, 0.10 g amobarbital and 10 mg amphetamine (phenopromine. sulf.) two types of formalized rating procedures—a verbal check list and graphic rating scales—were administered to 187 university students. Repeated self‐ratings were performed 45, 90 and 180 minutes after oral intake. By the check‐list method the expected difference between amphetamine and chlorpromazine was significantly established in all the three ratings. Only in the 45‐minute rating was a significant difference obtained between amobarbital and amphetamine. The graphic rating scales were clearly less efficient as judged from the greater proportion reporting ‘no change’.
A battery of objective behavioral tests was used to assay the differential patterning of antibarbituric effects of 5‐phenyl‐2‐imino‐4‐oxo‐oxazolidine (PIO), amphetamine, and caffeine. The test battery included a difficult code‐tracking operation performed under forced speed conditions, a 40 minute monotonous test of clerical speed (simple arithmetic operations), reaction time, two tests of fine motor coordination, aiming accuracy (moving targets rotated at three different speed levels), and the Archimedes spiral. Pulse rate and systolic blood pressure were recorded before and after each session on the code‐tracking test.
Two types of barbiturates (amobarbital and neopentylallylbarbituric acid) administered at two different dose levels (200 and 400 mg.) were given orally as hypnosedative premedication 150 minutes before the intake of the stimulant drugs. When compared with barbiturate plus placebo, PIO was found to differ from amphetamine and, to a slightly lesser degree, from caffeine in (1) having no antagonistic influence on residual pulse and blood pressure effects induced by barbiturate premedication, (2) having a less‐pronounced effect on variables related to visual motion aftereffect and finger‐hand dexterity, (3) being more effective in preserving a high level of operational skill against speed stress both in rotor aiming and a difficult learning variant of the code‐tracking test, and (4) being free of adverse effects from the subjective point of view.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.