Amphetamine Self-Administration in Light and Moderate Drinkers

Abstract

Background Light and moderate drinkers respond differently to the effects of abused drugs, including stimulants such as amphetamine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether light and moderate drinkers differ in their sensitivity to the reinforcing and subjective effects of d-amphetamine. We hypothesized that moderate drinkers (i.e., participants that reported consuming at least seven alcohol-containing beverages per week) would be more sensitive to the reinforcing and positive subject-rated effects of d-amphetamine than light drinkers. Methods Data from four studies that employed similar d-amphetamine self-administration procedures and subject-rated drug-effect measures were included in the analysis. Light (N=17) and moderate (N=16) drinkers sampled placebo, low (8-10 mg) and high (16-20 mg) doses of oral d-amphetamine administered in eight (8) capsules. Following sampling sessions, participants worked for a maximum of eight capsules, each containing 12.5% of the previously sampled dose, on a modified progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. Results Both active doses of d-amphetamine functioned as a reinforcer in the moderate drinkers while only the high dose did so in the light drinkers. The moderate drinkers worked for significantly more capsules that contained the high dose of d-amphetamine than did the light drinkers. d-Amphetamine produced prototypical stimulant-like subjective effects (e.g. dose-dependent increases in ratings of Good Effects; Like Drug and Willing to Take Again). Moderate drinkers reported significantly greater subjective effects than the light drinkers. Conclusion These results are consistent with those from previous laboratory experiments and suggest that moderate alcohol consumption may increase vulnerability to the abuse-related effects of stimulants.

Drinking to distraction: Does alcohol increase attentional bias in adults with ADHD?

“…Long-term d-amphetamine exposure increases ad libitum alcohol consumption in rats (Fahlke, Hansen, Engel, & Hard, 1994). A similar pattern has been shown in human adults: Moderate drinkers worked for more d-amphetamine and reported significantly greater subjective effects than did light drinkers (Stanley, Poole, Stoops, & Rush, 2011). Taken together, these studies provide evidence for cross-sensitization between alcohol and amphetamine.…”

The Amphetamine Response Moderates the Relationship Between Negative Emotionality and Alcohol Use

“…Sensitivity to the stimulant effects of alcohol is a candidate endophenotype for alcohol use disorders (Quinn and Fromme, ; Ray et al., ). The response to amphetamine has also been associated with various risk factors for alcoholism (Dlugos et al., ; Gabbay, ; Hutchison et al., ; Kelly et al., , ; Stanley et al., ; Stoops et al., , ; White et al., ). The present study extends this work by demonstrating that, in combination with a strong amphetamine response, negative emotionality was associated with more alcohol use.…”

“…Stimulant users manifest an exaggerated physiological response to alcohol (Brunelle et al., ), as compared with individuals who have never used psychostimulant drugs. Conversely, moderate alcohol drinkers report greater stimulation to amphetamine than light drinkers (Stanley et al., ; Stoops et al., ). This association is also evident in rodent models: selectively bred rats that self‐administer alcohol display a heightened responsiveness to the stimulant effects of amphetamine (D'Aquila et al., ; Fahlke et al., ; McKinzie et al., ), as compared with nonpreferring rats.…”

“…Sensitivity to the stimulant effects of alcohol is a candidate marker of vulnerability for alcohol use disorders (for reviews, see Morean and Corbin, ; Newlin and Renton, ; Newlin and Thompson, ; Quinn and Fromme, ; Ray et al., ). The subjective response to amphetamine, a prototypic stimulant drug, has also been associated with risk for alcoholism, measured in relation to family history (Gabbay, ), genetic polymorphisms (Dlugos et al., ), personality (Hutchison et al., ; Kelly et al., , ; Stoops et al., ; White et al., ), and consumption (Stanley et al., ; Stoops et al., ). The association between an enhanced stimulant response and risk is often interpreted in terms of reinforcement: individuals who experience positive, mood‐enhancing effects of a drug are more likely to use that drug—and potentially others with similar effects—than those who do not experience such effects (Haertzen et al., ; de Wit, ).…”

Relationship between oral D-amphetamine self-administration and ratings of subjective effects

“…The drug self-administration procedure has also shown to be sensitive to the influence of pharmacological (e.g., dose and route of administration) and nonpharmacological variables (e.g., behavioral demands and personality differences; see Stoops et al, 2008 for review). Furthermore, drug self-administration has shown to vary as a function of sensation-seeking status, inattention status, drinking status, and gender (Stoops et al, 2007a; Kollins et al, 2009; Vansickel et al, 2010; Stanley et al, 2011). Relevant to the present report, Stoops et al (2007a) reported that individuals high in sensation seeking were more sensitive to the reinforcing effects of d -amphetamine (8 or 16 mg) relative to participants that were low in sensation-seeking status.…”