Cited by 87Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Abuse liability assessment of atomoxetine in a drug-abusing population

Jasinski, Donald R., Faries, Douglas E., Moore, Rodney J., Schuh, Leslie M., Allen, Albert J.·2008·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

Background Atomoxetine is a non-amphetamine medication approved to treat ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Previous studies demonstrated low abuse potential for atomoxetine in recreational drug users. This study assessed the abuse potential of atomoxetine in stimulant-preferring drug abusers compared to methylphenidate and phentermine as positive controls and desipramine and placebo as negative controls.Methods Forty male and female, 32-53 years old stimulant-preferring drug abusers completed this balanced Latin-square designed study. Subjects received acute, double-blind doses of placebo, desipramine (100 and 200 mg), methylphenidate (90 mg), phentermine (60 mg), and atomoxetine (45, 90, and 180 mg). Subjective and physiological effects were collected for 24 h following each drug treatment.Results Methylphenidate and phentermine were liked significantly more than placebo, atomoxetine, or desipramine. No atomoxetine dose was liked significantly more than placebo and liking scores for atomoxetine were similar to, or significantly lower than, desipramine, as assessed by the Drug Rating Questionnaire-Subject. While atomoxetine 45 and 180 mg did not significantly change any Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) scores, atomoxetine 90 mg significantly increased A and BG stimulant scores of the ARCI and both methylphenidate and phentermine produced greater A and BG increases than any atomoxetine dose and also increased MBG (euphoria) scores relative to placebo.Conclusions Atomoxetine has significantly less abuse liability than methylphenidate or phentermine and no greater abuse liability than desipramine.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 87

Authors
Jasinski, D. R., Faries, D. E., Moore, R. J., Schuh, L. M., & Allen, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Allen, Albert J.
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-05
Volume
95
Issue
1-2
Pages
140-146
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2046707923
Cited by
87
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
FWCI
5.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
atomoxetine, abuse liability, methylphenidate, phentermine, desipramine, ADHD medication, Addiction Research Center Inventory, euphoria
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Arousal, Desipramine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Phentermine, Propylamines, Risk, Cross-Over Studies, Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review