Cited by 138Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorSchizophrenia research and treatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The effects of acute haloperidol or risperidone on subjective responses to methamphetamine in healthy volunteers

Wachtel, Stephen R, Ortengren, Amanda, Wit, Harriet de·2002·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00104-7

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 68 · Cited by 138

Authors
Wachtel, S. R., Ortengren, A., & Wit, H. D.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
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