4.0 Article

Comparison of a drug versus money and drug versus drug self-administration choice procedure with oxycodone and morphine in opioid addicts

Journal

BEHAVIOURAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 5-6, Pages 504-516

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FBP.0b013e328363d1c4

Keywords

abuse liability; buprenorphine maintenance; human; morphine : oxycodone ratio; opioid dependence; physiological and subjective effects; self-administration procedure

Funding

  1. NIDA [DA09236]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the effects of oral morphine (0, 45, 135 mg/70 kg) and oral oxycodone (0, 15, 45 mg/70 kg) on buprenorphine-maintained opioid addicts. As a 3 : 1 morphine : oxycodone oral dose ratio yielded equivalent subjective and physiological effects in nondependent individuals, this ratio was used in the present study. Two self-administration laboratory procedures - that is, a drug versus money and a drug versus drug procedure - were assessed. Study participants (N=12) lived in the hospital and were maintained on 4 mg/day sublingual buprenorphine. When participants chose between drug and money, money was preferred over all drug doses; only high-dose oxycodone was self-administered more than placebo. When participants chose between drug and drug, both drugs were chosen more than placebo, high doses of each drug were chosen over low doses, and high-dose oxycodone was preferred over high-dose morphine. The subjective, performance-impairing, and miotic effects of high-dose oxycodone were generally greater than those of high-dose morphine. The study demonstrated that a 3 : 1 oral dose ratio of morphine : oxycodone was not equipotent in buprenorphine-dependent individuals. Both self-administration procedures were effective for assessing the relative reinforcing effects of drugs; preference for one procedure should be driven by the specific research question of interest.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available