Evaluation of the abuse liability of aminorex

DARK Classics in Chemical Neuroscience: Aminorex Analogues

Aminorex (5-phenyl-4,5-dihydro-1,3-oxazol-2-amine) and 4-methylaminorex (4-methyl-5-phenyl-4,5-dihydro-1,3-oxazol-2-amine) are psychostimulants that have long been listed in Schedules IV and I of the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. However, a range of psychoactive analogues exist that are not internationally controlled and therefore often classified as new psychoactive substances (NPS). Aminorex analogues encompass failed pharmaceuticals that reemerged as drugs of abuse, and newly synthesized substances that were solely designed for recreational use by clandestine chemists. NPS, sometimes also referred to as "designer drugs" in alignment with a phenomenon arising in the early 1980s, serve as alternatives to controlled drugs. Aminorex and its derivatives interact with monoaminergic neurotransmission by interfering with the function of monoamine transporters. Hence, these compounds share pharmacological and neurochemical similarities with amphetamines and cocaine. The consumption of aminorex, 4-methylaminorex and 4,4'-dimethylaminorex (4-methyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-4,5-dihydro-1,3-oxazol-2-amine) has been associated with adverse events including death, bestowing an inglorious fame on aminorex-derived drugs. In this Review, a historical background is presented, as well as an account of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of aminorex and various analogues. Light is shed on their misuse as drug adulterants of well-established drugs on the market. This Review not only provides a detailed overview of an abused substance-class, but also emphasizes the darkest aspect of the NPS market, i.e., deleterious side effects that arise from the ingestion of certain NPS, as knowledge of the pharmacology, the potency, or the identity of the active ingredients remains obscure to NPS users.

Discriminative stimulus effects of cocaine-levamisole combinations in Sprague-Dawley rats

BACKGROUND

Levamisole (LVM) is a common adulterant in clandestinely manufactured cocaine (COC), with a range of well-documented deleterious health effects. Although the prevalence of LVM in COC has been widely noted, the subjective effects related to concomitant COC-LVM administration are poorly understood.

AIMS

The present study sought to compare the subjective effects of LVM alone and in combination with COC in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats trained to discriminate COC from vehicle injections.

METHODS

Male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate COC from vehicle injections using a two-lever, food-reinforced drug discrimination procedure. Subsequent dose-effect curves were generated for COC, LVM, and a variety of COC-LVM combinations.

RESULTS

No significant difference in males and females was observed on any measure of responding. LVM alone dose-dependently decreased response rates and failed to produce substitution for COC. When LVM was administered with COC, previously ineffective doses of COC engendered COC-appropriate responding.

CONCLUSIONS

LVM potentiates the subjective effects of COC when administered concomitantly. These findings are consistent with the popular notion that LVM is added as an adulterant to COC to amplify the subjective effects of COC administration.

Pharmacokinetics and effects of aminorex in horses

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the pharmacokinetics and behavioral effects of aminorex administered IV and PO in horses.

ANIMALS

7 Thoroughbreds.

PROCEDURES

In a cross-over design, aminorex (0.03 mg/kg) was administered IV or PO. Plasma and urinary aminorex concentrations were determined via liquid chromatography- mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Decrease of aminorex from plasma following IV administration was described by a 3-compartment pharmacokinetic model. Median (range) values of alpha, beta, and gamma half-lives were 0.04 (0.01 to 0.28), 2.30 (1.23 to 3.09), and 18.82 (8.13 to 46.64) hours, respectively. Total body and renal clearance, the area under the plasma time curve, and initial volume of distribution were 37.26 (28.61 to 56.24) mL x min/kg, 1.25 (0.85 to 2.05) mL x min/kg, 13.39 (8.82 to 17.37) ng x h/mL, and 1.44 (0.10 to 3.64) L/kg, respectively. Oral administration was described by a 2-compartment model with first-order absorption, elimination from the central compartment, and distribution into peripheral compartments. The absorption half-life was 0.29 (0.12 to 1.07) hours, whereas the beta and gamma elimination phases were 1.93 (1.01 to 3.17) and 23.57 (15.16 to 47.45) hours, respectively. The area under the curve for PO administration was 10.38 (4.85 to 13.40) ng.h/mL and the fractional absorption was 81.8% (33.8% to 86.9%).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Aminorex administered IV had a large volume of distribution, initial rapid decrease, and an extended terminal elimination. Following PO administration, there was rapid absorption, rapid initial decrease, and an extended terminal elimination. At a dose of 0.03 mg/kg, the only effects detected were transient and central in origin and were observed only following IV administration.

Incorporating the assessment of abuse liability into the drug discovery and development process

Evaluation of abuse liability is one of many obligations incurred by industrial sponsors in the development of medications acting on substrates in the central nervous system. In addition to providing the information necessary for a scheduling recommendation in the marketing application, the abuse liability assessment allows sponsors to estimate safety and commercial risks associated with scheduling, as well as to tailor their pre- and post-approval programs to collect information relevant to product misuse, illicit diversion and physical dependence. There are several important factors to consider before embarking on an abuse liability assessment, including the compound's primary and secondary biochemical activities, its absorption and metabolism, its final formulation, and its intended clinical population. Each of these factors will temper the timing and extent of the abuse liability program in animals and humans. Although every drug development program is unique in some way, a decision-making process may be applied to abuse liability assessment that will serve to better utilize limited resources and inform decisions regarding subsequent steps in the process. The emerging properties of the product will define the unique procedures best applied to assess it.

Evaluation of the reinforcing and discriminative stimulus effects of 1,4-butanediol and gamma-butyrolactone in rhesus monkeys

Metabolic precursors and prodrugs of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), including 1,4-butanediol (BDL) and gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), have sedative and anesthetic effects and might have positive reinforcing effects. BDL and GBL were evaluated using behavioral procedures that measure positive reinforcing effects and discriminative stimulus effects of drugs that modulate gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at the GABA(A) receptor complex. One group of rhesus monkeys could respond for saline or the barbiturate methohexital (i.v.) in a self-administration paradigm. Two other groups of monkeys discriminated the barbiturate pentobarbital (i.g.) or the benzodiazepine midazolam (s.c.) from saline in a drug discrimination paradigm; another group of monkeys was treated with the benzodiazepine diazepam (5.6 mg/kg/day, p.o.) and discriminated the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil (s.c.) from vehicle. In self-administration experiments, methohexital and not BDL (0.1-3.2 mg/kg/injection) or GBL (0.1-3.2 mg/kg/injection) reliably maintained responding above saline levels. BDL and GBL, up to doses that suppressed responding, did not substitute for pentobarbital, midazolam or flumazenil. The onset of action for both drugs to decrease response rate was delayed (90 min for GBL and 150 min for BDL). These results suggest that any abuse-related effects of BDL and GBL are qualitatively different from the abuse-related effects of GABA(A) receptor modulators and further indicate that BDL and GBL do not have positive reinforcing effects in rhesus monkeys experienced with self-administration of a short-acting sedative-hypnotic.

Amphetamine-type central nervous system stimulants release norepinephrine more potently than they release dopamine and serotonin

A large body of evidence supports the hypothesis that mesolimbic dopamine (DA) mediates, in animal models, the reinforcing effects of central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamine. The role DA plays in mediating amphetamine-type subjective effects of stimulants in humans remains to be established. Both amphetamine and cocaine increase norepinephrine (NE) via stimulation of release and inhibition of reuptake, respectively. If increases in NE mediate amphetamine-type subjective effects of stimulants in humans, then one would predict that stimulant medications that produce amphetamine-type subjective effects in humans should share the ability to increase NE. To test this hypothesis, we determined, using in vitro methods, the neurochemical mechanism of action of amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), (+)-methamphetamine, ephedrine, phentermine, and aminorex. As expected, their rank order of potency for DA release was similar to their rank order of potency in published self-administration studies. Interestingly, the results demonstrated that the most potent effect of these stimulants is to release NE. Importantly, the oral dose of these stimulants, which produce amphetamine-type subjective effects in humans, correlated with the their potency in releasing NE, not DA, and did not decrease plasma prolactin, an effect mediated by DA release. These results suggest that NE may contribute to the amphetamine-type subjective effects of stimulants in humans.

Evaluation of the reinforcing and discriminative stimulus effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate in rhesus monkeys

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a metabolite of GABA that is present in the CNS and fulfils at least some of the criteria for a neurotransmitter. Its effects are generally similar to those of CNS depressants and include ataxia, sleep and anesthesia. It has also been suggested that GHB is a drug of abuse. The present experiment was designed to evaluate GHB in procedures predictive of abuse and dependence potential in rhesus monkeys. Three monkeys were surgically prepared with indwelling silicone venous catheters and allowed to self-administer methohexital or saline in twice-daily experimental sessions. Other groups of monkeys were trained in drug discrimination paradigms to discriminate D-amphetamine (AMPH; n = 4), pentobarbital (PB; n = 3) or triazolam (n = 3) from saline. Another group was maintained on diazepam daily and trained to discriminate flumazenil from saline (n = 2). GHB (0.01-10 mg/kg per injection) maintained self-administration marginally above saline levels at one dose (3.2 or 10 mg/kg) in two of the three monkeys tested. GHB (1.0-178 mg/kg, subcutaneously (s.c.) or intragastrically (i.g.)) did not reliably substitute as a discriminative stimulus for any of the training conditions. Taken together with previous results, the present experiment suggests that GHB has, at most, low potential for abuse.

Zipeprol: preclinical assessment of abuse potential

Zipeprol was evaluated in a number of in vitro and in vivo assays predictive of stimulant, depressant, or opioid abuse potential. Zipeprol had affinity for mu and kappa opioid binding sites as well as sigma binding sites. However, it failed to exert opioid-like agonist actions in rodents, and did not attenuate withdrawal signs in morphine- or pentobarbital-dependent rats. Zipeprol did not substitute for either amphetamine or pentobarbital in drug discrimination assays in rhesus monkeys. On the other hand, it suppressed morphine withdrawal signs in rhesus monkeys in two assays, and it acted as a quadazocine-sensitive reinforcer in monkeys trained to self-inject alfentanil. Zipeprol also acted as a reinforcer in monkeys trained to self-inject methohexital. In a dose range of 10-18 mg/kg, zipeprol induced convulsions in monkeys. Zipeprol appears to have abuse potential and a novel spectrum of action involving both opioid and non-opioid effects.