4.4 Article

Subjective effects of slow-release bupropion versus caffeine as determined in a quasi-naturalistic setting

Journal

PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 4, Pages 206-215

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000075550

Keywords

bupropion; Zyban (R); caffeine; subjective effects; visual analog scale; patient-to-treatment matching; smokers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bupropion (BUP), which in its slow-release formulation (Zyban(R)) is used as a smoking-cessation drug, increases dopamine overflow in the nucleus accumbens and serves as a reinforcer in animal experiments, both suggesting that BUP may possess some abuse liability. The present study examined if BUP produced subjective effects indicative of abuse liability in a quasi-naturalistic setting, with caffeine (CAF) serving as a positive control. In a randomized double-blind crossover design, male smokers (n = 50) ingested two doses (interdosing interval, 6 h) of placebo (PLC), 178 mg CAF, or 150 mg slow-release BUP in their normal mid-week work environment. They completed questionnaires administered by telephone at regular intervals. CAF significantly increased ratings of 'pleasant effects' (p = 0.008) and 'high' (p = 0.03), whereas BUP produced a 'high' of only very moderate size (p = 0.02). In 3 subjects each, BUP or CAF produced ratings of 'pleasant effects' that were 19-fold higher than those for PLC. Finally, BUP increased the number of cigarettes smoked by 29% (i.e., from 24 to 31 per day; p = 0.004) only in those subjects who were unable to report any effect of either BUP or CAF. CAF had no effect on cigarette consumption. These findings suggest that BUP, like CAF, might be of some abuse liability in a small subgroup of smokers (i.e., 6% each of the present sample), and it may transiently increase, rather than decrease, smoking during early phases of treatment in continuing smokers. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available