The effects of acute haloperidol or risperidone on subjective responses to methamphetamine in healthy volunteers
Abstract
Despite extensive evidence that selective dopamine antagonists attenuate the reinforcing effects of stimulants in laboratory animals, there is little evidence that dopamine antagonists block the positive subjective effects of stimulants in humans. However, recent evidence suggests that the subjective effects of stimulants in humans may depend in part on serotonin. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of haloperidol, a drug that primarily blocks dopamine receptors, and risperidone, a drug that blocks both dopamine and serotonin receptors, on the physiological and subjective effects of methamphetamine in healthy volunteers. Two groups of subjects participated in a placebo-controlled, within-subject, 2 x 2 repeated measures design. One group was tested with haloperidol (3 mg; N = 18), the other with risperidone (0.75 mg; N = 18). Each subject participated in four sessions receiving all combinations of antagonist or placebo and methamphetamine (20 mg) or placebo. Dependent measures included vital signs and standardized questionnaires of subjective effects. At these doses, both haloperidol and risperidone produced mild sedative-like effects compared to placebo. However, neither drug consistently reduced the stimulant-like effects of methamphetamine. These results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that D(2) dopamine receptor antagonists do not block the euphorigenic subjective effects of stimulant drugs in humans, and also do not support the idea that serotonin contributes significantly to these effects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A 20 mg methamphetamine dose was chosen for its safety and its ability to produce strong stimulant and euphoric responses in people without prior amphetamine use.
“For the current study, we selected a methamphetamine dose (20mg) that is safe, and induces robust stimulant and euphoric effects, in amphetamine-naive volunteers [27].”
From Is Ecstasy an “Empathogen”? Effects of +/- 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine on Prosocial Feelings and Identification of Emotional States in Others (2010) · cites this paper as [27]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 138
- Authors
- Wachtel, S. R., Ortengren, A., & Wit, H. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wit, Harriet de
- ORCID
- Wit, Harriet de
- Venue
- Drug and Alcohol Dependence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-33
- ISSN
- 0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076038043
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1r03da012143-01a1)
- U.S. Public Health Service
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 02812, R01DA002812, DA12143)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- haloperidol, risperidone, methamphetamine, subjective effects, dopamine antagonists, dopamine D2 receptor, serotonin, antipsychotic effects, sedation, vital signs
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Dopamine, Double-Blind Method, Emotions, Female, Haloperidol, Humans, Male, Methamphetamine, Serotonin, Serotonin Antagonists, Dopamine Antagonists, Risperidone
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