Propranolol on Tests of Visual Function and Central Nervous Activity

1Some central and peripheral effects of orally administered propranolol (60 mg), diazepam (5 mg) and placebo were compared in normal subjects. 2 The central effects measured were changes in magnitude of the contingent negative variation (CNV) and subjective anxiety ratings; the peripheral effects were changes in heart rate, blood pressure, galvanic skin response and hand steadiness. 3 After diazepam there was a decrease in CNV magnitude and in the level of subjective anxiety; there was a slight fall in blood pressure but little change in heart rate. 4 After propranolol, on the other hand, there was no significant change in CNV magnitude or anxiety rating, but a significant fall in heart rate and systolic blood pressure. 5 It is concluded that, at the dosage used, propranolol, unlike diazepam, does not affect the central mechanisms determining CNV magnitude or subjective anxiety. The relationship of this finding to the use of f-adrenergic receptor blockers in clinical anxiety states is discussed.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Some Physiological and Psychological Effects of Propranolol and Diazepam in Normal Subjects

Ashton

Millman

Telford

et al. 1976

“…On balance, the beneficial effect of propranolol and other ,B-adrenoceptor blocking agents in anxiety would appear to be due to peripheral blockade rather than to central action. Thus, definite central effects of propranolol do occur in man (Gillam & Prichard, 1965;Stephen, 1966;Hinshelwood, 1969;Orzack, Branconnier & Gardos, 1973;Bryan, Efiong, Stewart-Jones & Turner, 1974) and in animals (Leszkovsky & Tardos, 1965; Bainbridge & Greenwood, 1971), but only in higher dosages than those used in the clinical studies of anxiety (Granville-Grossman & Turner, 1966;Wheatley, 1969). Practolol, a,-adrenoceptor blocking agent which does not enter the brain in appreciable amounts, is similar in effects to propranolol (Bonn, Turner & Hicks, 1972).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiological and Psychological Effects of ±‐propranolol, +‐propranolol and Diazepam in Induced Anxiety

Tyrer

Lader

1974

Four equal‐sexed groups of eight normal subjects were given single doses of either (±)‐propranolol (120 mg), (+)‐propranolol (120 mg), diazepam (6 mg) or placebo using double‐blind procedure and their effects studied under three types of experimental stress and at rest. Finger tremor, EEG, averaged auditory evoked response, skin conductance, heart rate and respiratory rate were measured at each time of testing, and subjects also completed performance tests (reaction time, tapping speed and symbol copying) and subjective mood scales. Neither (+)‐ nor (±)‐propranolol had any beneficial effects on mood and physiological tests showed that, although adequate β‐adrenoceptor blockade was achieved, there was no evidence of sedation. Diazepam reduced subjective anxiety, significantly lessened the main amplitude of the auditory evoked response and also reduced the proportion of slower rhythms in the EEG. The results suggest that (+)‐ and (±)‐propranolol have no psychotropic effects on induced anxiety and that their modes of action are fundamentally different from that of diazepam.

“…However, presently available possible central effects of 1-adrenoceptor an-information is difficult to evaluate. Impaired tagonists, but, though it is likely that these drugs performance has been reported after single doses have such effects, their severity may be minimal (Bryan et al, 1974;Glaister et al, 1973; Landauer compared with the benzodiazepines. Indeed, et al, 1979;Salem & McDevitt, 1983), while light-headedness, visual and auditory halluci-other studies have failed to show such effects nations, sleep disturbances, vivid dreams and (Ogle etal., 1976;Turner & Hedges, 1973 In this paper we report the observations on various aspects of performance as well as subjective assessments of well being and mood, and in the following paper we deal with the findings on the electroencephalogram and body sway.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Central effects of beta‐adrenoceptor antagonists. I‐Performance and subjective assessments of mood.

Currie

Lewis

McDevitt

et al. 1988

1 Central effects of the P-adrenoceptor antagonists, propranolol (40, 80 and 160 mg) and atenolol (50 and 100 mg) were studied in 12 healthy male subjects. Two placebo ingestions and an active control (oxazepam 15 mg) were included. Single doses were administered double-blind at 11.00 h, and assessments of performance and subjective feelings were made before, 2 h and 4 h after ingestion. 2 Performance was measured using letter cancellation, digit symbol substitution, continuous attention, choice reaction time, finger tapping, short term and immediate memory, critical flicker fusion and two flash fusion. Subjective feelings were assessed using twelve visual-analogue scales.3 Oxazepam impaired performance at letter cancellation (P < 0.001), digit symbol substitution (P < 0.05), continuous attention (P < 0.001), immediate recall (P < 0.05) and finger tapping (P < 0.05), but neither of the 3-adrenoceptor antagonists affected these measures. Propranolol (40 and 160 mg) also impaired short term memory (P < 0.05), though it was not possible to establish this effect with atenolol.4 Subjective alertness was reduced by oxazepam (P < 0.01) and atenolol (P < 0.05), while propranolol (40 mg) reduced anxiety (P < 0.01) and propranolol (80 mg) impaired ability to concentrate (P < 0.05). 5 The results suggest that both lipophilic and hydrophilic antagonists modify the central nervous system, though impairment may be difficult to establish with conventional tests.The observations on memory and alertness suggest that the central effect of P-adrenoceptor antagonists may be subtle. Keywords ,B-adrenoceptor antagonists propranolol atenolol performance IntroductionThere is uncertainty concerning the nature of the Fleming, 1978). However, presently available possible central effects of 1-adrenoceptor an-information is difficult to evaluate. Impaired tagonists, but, though it is likely that these drugs performance has been reported after single doses have such effects, their severity may be minimal (Bryan et al., 1974;Glaister et al., 1973; Landauer compared with the benzodiazepines. Indeed, et al., 1979;Salem & McDevitt, 1983), while light-headedness, visual and auditory halluci-other studies have failed to show such effects nations, sleep disturbances, vivid dreams and (Ogle etal., 1976;Turner & Hedges, 1973 In this paper we report the observations on various aspects of performance as well as subjective assessments of well being and mood, and in the following paper we deal with the findings on the electroencephalogram and body sway. Methods Experimental designTwelve healthy male volunteers, aged between 19 and 29 years, participated in the study which was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee. None was taking any concurrent medication and each was required to abstain from alcohol for 24 h before each study period. No caffeinecontaining beverages were permitted during the study days.Performance was tested in individual, soundproofed cubicles. The intensity of lighting could be adjusted to permit dark adaptation before measurem...