Super-additive interaction of the reinforcing effects of cocaine and H1-antihistamines in rhesus monkeys

Effects of remifentanil/histamine mixtures in rats responding under a choice procedure

Intravenous drug self-administration remains the 'gold standard' for assessing abuse liability. Failure of a drug to maintain self-administration might indicate the absence of positive reinforcing effects but might also indicate the presence of aversive effects. Sensitivity to aversive and punishing effects of drugs (as well as nondrug stimuli) might collectively determine the likelihood of use, abuse and relapse. Using a choice procedure, this study compared the effects of remifentanil (mu opioid receptor agonist; 0.001-0.01 mg/kg/infusion) and histamine (H1-4 receptor agonist; 0.32-3.2 mg/kg/infusion), alone and in mixtures, to test the hypothesis that remifentanil/histamine mixtures are less reinforcing compared with remifentanil alone and less punishing compared with histamine alone. Male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 10) chose between an intravenous infusion + a pellet and a pellet alone. Rats were indifferent to saline, chose remifentanil + a pellet over a pellet alone, and chose a pellet alone over histamine + a pellet. The effects of remifentanil/histamine mixtures generally were different from the constituent doses of histamine alone but not from remifentanil alone. A mixture containing 3.2 mg/kg/infusion histamine and either 0.001 or 0.0032 mg/kg/infusion remifentanil was not different from saline but was different from the effects of the constituent dose, insofar as choice increased compared with 3.2 mg/kg/infusion histamine alone and decreased compared with 0.001 or 0.0032 mg/kg/infusion remifentanil alone. Reinforcing doses of remifentanil combined with punishing doses of histamine can yield mixtures that are neither preferred nor avoided, offering 'proof-of-principle' for using drug mixtures to avoid adverse effects of opioid receptor agonists.

A qualitative study of diphenhydramine injection in Kyrgyz prisons and implications for harm reduction

BACKGROUND

To reduce opioid dependence and HIV transmission, Kyrgyzstan has introduced methadone maintenance therapy and needle/syringe programs into prisons. Illicit injection of diphenhydramine, an antihistamine branded as Dimedrol®, has been anecdotally reported as a potential challenge to harm reduction efforts in prisons but has not been studied systematically.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews in Kyrgyz or Russian with prisoners (n = 49), former prisoners (n = 19), and stakeholders (n = 18), including prison administrators and prisoner advocates near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan from October 2016 to September 2018. Interviews explored social-contextual factors influencing methadone utilization in prisons. Transcripts were coded by five researchers using content analysis. Dimedrol injection emerged as an important topic, prompting a dedicated analysis.

RESULTS

After drinking methadone, some people in prison inject crushed Dimedrol tablets, a non-prescription antihistamine that is banned but obtainable in prison, to achieve a state of euphoria. From the perspectives of the study participants, Dimedrol injection was associated with devastating physical and mental health consequences, including psychosis and skin infections. Moreover, the visible wounds of Dimedrol injecting contributed to the perception of methadone as a harmful drug and supporting preference for heroin over methadone.

CONCLUSION

Dimedrol injecting is a potentially serious threat to harm reduction and HIV prevention efforts in Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere in the Eastern European and Central Asian region and requires further investigation.

Effects of the histamine H₁ receptor antagonist and benztropine analog diphenylpyraline on dopamine uptake, locomotion and reward

Diphenylpyraline hydrochloride (DPP) is an internationally available antihistamine that produces therapeutic antiallergic effects by binding to histamine H₁ receptors. The complete neuropharmacological and behavioral profile of DPP, however, remains uncharacterized. Here we describe studies that suggest DPP may fit the profile of a potential agonist replacement medication for cocaine addiction. Aside from producing the desired histamine reducing effects, many antihistamines can also elicit psychomotor activation and reward, both of which are associated with increased dopamine concentrations in the nucleus accumbens (NAc). The primary aim of this study was to investigate the potential ability of DPP to inhibit the dopamine transporter, thereby leading to elevated dopamine concentrations in the NAc in a manner similar to cocaine and other psychostimulants. The psychomotor activating and rewarding effects of DPP were also investigated. For comparative purposes cocaine, a known dopamine transporter inhibitor, psychostimulant and drug of abuse, was used as a positive control. As predicted, both cocaine (15 mg/kg) and an equimolar dose of DPP (14 mg/kg) significantly inhibited dopamine uptake in the NAc in vivo and produced locomotor activation, although the time-course of pharmacological effects of the two drugs was different. In comparison to cocaine, DPP showed a prolonged effect on dopamine uptake and locomotion. Furthermore, cocaine, but not DPP, produced significant conditioned place preference, a measure of drug reward. The finding that DPP functions as a potent dopamine uptake inhibitor without producing significant rewarding effects suggests that DPP merits further study as a potential candidate as an agonist pharmacotherapy for cocaine addiction.

Involvement of the brain histaminergic system in addiction and addiction-related behaviors: a comprehensive review with emphasis on the potential therapeutic use of histaminergic compounds in drug dependence

Neurons that produce histamine are exclusively located in the tuberomamillary nucleus of the posterior hypothalamus and send widespread projections to almost all brain areas. Neuronal histamine is involved in many physiological and behavioral functions such as arousal, feeding behavior and learning. Although conflicting data have been published, several studies have also demonstrated a role of histamine in the psychomotor and rewarding effects of addictive drugs. Pharmacological and brain lesion experiments initially led to the proposition that the histaminergic system exerts an inhibitory influence on drug reward processes, opposed to that of the dopaminergic system. The purpose of this review is to summarize the relevant literature on this topic and to discuss whether the inhibitory function of histamine on drug reward is supported by current evidence from published results. Research conducted during the past decade demonstrated that the ability of many antihistaminic drugs to potentiate addiction-related behaviors essentially results from non-specific effects and does not constitute a valid argument in support of an inhibitory function of histamine on reward processes. The reviewed findings also indicate that histamine can either stimulate or inhibit the dopamine mesolimbic system through distinct neuronal mechanisms involving different histamine receptors. Finally, the hypothesis that the histaminergic system plays an inhibitory role on drug reward appears to be essentially supported by place conditioning studies that focused on morphine reward. The present review suggests that the development of drugs capable of activating the histaminergic system may offer promising therapeutic tools for the treatment of opioid dependence.

Self-administration of (+)-methamphetamine and (+)-pseudoephedrine, alone and combined, by rhesus monkeys

(+)-Methamphetamine (MA) is an illicit psychostimulant that can be synthesized from the nonprescription nasal decongestant, (+)-pseudoephedrine (PE). While MA is widely abused, PE appears to have little or no abuse liability in currently available formulations. However, PE produces centrally-mediated dopaminergic effects that are linked to the reinforcing effects of MA and other illicit psychostimulants and has been reported to function as a positive reinforcer in non-human primates. There has yet to be an assessment of the relative reinforcing effects of MA and PE. Therefore, the current study compared the reinforcing potency and strength of MA and PE, alone and combined, in four rhesus monkeys that were allowed to self-administer MA (0.003-0.3 mg/kg/inj), PE (0.1-3.0 mg/kg/inj), or combinations of the two under a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. (+)-Methamphetamine functioned as a positive reinforcer in a dose-dependent manner. (+)-Pseudoephedrine also functioned as a positive reinforcer, but was less potent than MA. There were no differences in maximum injections between MA, PE, or any of the combinations of the two. Dose-addition analysis and the interaction index indicated that combinations of PE and MA were either additive or sub-additive in their reinforcing effects. These results suggest that, while MA is a more potent reinforcer than PE, the two drugs are comparable in terms of reinforcing strength. However, MA and PE do not appear to interact in a manner that enhances their relative reinforcing effects.

Discovery of drugs to treat cocaine dependence: behavioral and neurochemical effects of atypical dopamine transport inhibitors

Stimulant drugs acting at the dopamine transporter (DAT), like cocaine, are widely abused, yet effective medical treatments for this abuse have not been found. Analogs of benztropine (BZT) that, like cocaine, act at the DAT have effects that differ from cocaine and in some situations block the behavioral, neurochemical, and reinforcing actions of cocaine. Neurochemical studies of dopamine levels in brain and behavioral studies have demonstrated that BZT analogs have a relatively slow onset and reduced maximal effects compared to cocaine. Pharmacokinetic studies, however, indicated that the BZT analogs rapidly access the brain at concentrations above their in vitro binding affinities, while binding in vivo demonstrates apparent association rates for BZT analogs lower than that for cocaine. Additionally, the off-target effects of these compounds do not fully explain their differences from cocaine. Initial structure-activity studies indicated that BZT analogs bind to DAT differently from cocaine and these differences have been supported by site-directed mutagenesis studies of the DAT. In addition, BZT analog-mediated inhibition of uptake was more resistant to mutations producing inward conformational DAT changes than cocaine analogs. The BZT analogs have provided new insights into the relation between the molecular and behavioral actions of cocaine and the diversity of effects produced by dopamine transport inhibitors. Novel interactions of BZT analogs with the DAT suggest that these drugs may have a pharmacology that would be useful in their development as treatments for cocaine abuse.

Behavioral and neurochemical effects of cocaine and diphenhydramine combinations in rhesus monkeys

RATIONALE

Diphenhydramine (DPH) is an over-the-counter medication used in the treatment of allergic symptoms. While DPH abuse is infrequent, recent preclinical evidence suggests that DPH and cocaine combinations may have enhanced reinforcing properties.

OBJECTIVE

The aims were to assess the reinforcing effectiveness of cocaine and DPH alone or in combination under a second-order schedule of reinforcement and to examine the neurochemical basis of this interaction using in vivo microdialysis in awake rhesus monkeys.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cocaine (0.03-0.3 mg/kg per injection), DPH (0.3-3.0 mg/kg per injection), or a combination was available under a second-order schedule of intravenous drug reinforcement (n = 3). In microdialysis studies, noncontingent cocaine (0.1-1.0 mg/kg, iv), DPH (1.7 and 3.0 mg/kg, iv), or a combination was administered and changes in extracellular dopamine levels in the caudate nucleus were examined (n = 3-5).

RESULTS

Cocaine and DPH dose-dependently maintained operant responding. Dose combinations of 1.0 or 1.7 mg/kg per injection DPH and 0.03 mg/kg per injection cocaine maintained greater rates of operant responding than 0.03 mg/kg per injection cocaine alone in the second component of the behavioral session. In microdialysis studies, cocaine dose-dependently increased extracellular dopamine levels, but no dose of DPH tested significantly increased dopamine levels above baseline. Moreover, combining DPH with cocaine did not enhance cocaine-induced dopamine increases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support previous evidence of enhanced reinforcement with cocaine and DPH combinations and extend this finding to operant behavior maintained under a second-order schedule. However, the reinforcing effects of DPH alone or in combination with cocaine do not appear to be mediated via changes in dopamine overflow.