PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

William W Stoops

Publications and source records attributed to William W Stoops.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Differential effects in humans after repeated administrations of zolpidem and triazolam.

Zolpidem, a commonly prescribed hypnotic, is an imidazopyridine that purportedly has a unique benzodiazepine-receptor binding profile. Despite its unique binding profile, human laboratory experiments have generally failed to demonstrate meaningful behavioral pharmacological differences between zolpidem and classic benzodiazepine-receptor agonists like triazolam. In this article, two groups of nondrug-abusing volunteers received 15 mg zolpidem (N = 11) or 0.375 mg zolpidem (N = 15) on four separate occasions and placebo on two other occasions. In both groups, the order of drug administration was quasi-random. Drug effects were assessed with a battery of laboratory performance tasks and subject-rated drug-effect questionnaires. Zolpidem and triazolam produced prototypical sedative-like effects (e.g., impaired performance, increased subject-ratings of sedation). The performance-impairing effects of triazolam, but not zolpidem, were significantly less after the final administration relative to the initial administration. The subject-rated effects of both zolpidem and triazolam were significantly less after the final administration relative to the initial administration. The results of this experiment suggest that zolpidem and triazolam differ in terms of tolerance-producing effects. Future studies should assess the tolerance-producing effects of zolpidem across a range of doses, as well as other novel sedatives such as zaleplon.

Adult↗

Alcohol choice and amphetamine effects in light and moderate drinkers.

BACKGROUND: The results of previously published reports suggest that light and moderate drinkers respond differently to the effects of commonly abused sedatives (e.g., diazepam or ethanol). The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether light and moderate drinkers respond differentially to the effects of ethanol and d-amphetamine. METHODS: In the first phase of this experiment, volunteers (eight light drinkers and eight moderate drinkers) randomly sampled 0.5 g/kg of ethanol and placebo across two separate sessions. In the second phase, volunteers completed three sessions in which they chose either ethanol or placebo. In the third phase, volunteers received 0, 5, 10, and 15 mg of d-amphetamine. Each dose was tested twice. After drug administration in each phase, volunteers completed a battery of subject-rated, performance, and physiologic measures periodically for 5 hr. RESULTS: Ethanol produced prototypical subject-rated effects (e.g., increased ratings on the Alcohol Sensation Scale), but it was chosen over placebo infrequently. Light and moderate drinkers did not differ in terms of the self-reported or reinforcing effects of ethanol. d-Amphetamine produced prototypical subject-rated stimulant-like effects (e.g., dose-dependent increases in ratings of High and Rush). Moderate drinkers reported significantly greater drug effects than light drinkers. Responses to ethanol reliably predicted subsequent responses to d-amphetamine on several measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this experiment suggest that even moderate ethanol use may increase an individual's vulnerability to abuse drugs. Future studies should determine whether light and moderate drinkers respond differentially to other commonly abused drugs (e.g., opioids) and whether behavioral responses to ethanol also predict responses to these compounds.

Adult↗

Clinical neuropharmacology of drugs of abuse: a comparison of drug-discrimination and subject-report measures.

Advances in molecular pharmacology and behavioral science have helped elucidate the structure and function of the central nervous system and its relationship to behavior and has sparked the development of pharmacological agents that have increasingly selective and potent effects with fewer adverse side effects. The sensitivity and predictive validity of the two most commonly used methodologies for assessing the neuropharmacological effects of centrally active drugs, subject report of drug effects and drug discrimination, were examined. The sensitivity of the measures was comparable across stimulant, sedative, and opioid drugs. Results with drug-discrimination methodologies were generally consistent with hypothesized neuropharmacological mechanisms across all drug classes, whereas subject reports conformed under more limited testing conditions. Firm conclusions regarding the relative utility of drug-discrimination and subject-report measures for clinical studies of neuropharmacological mechanisms are limited by the small number of studies in which the two methodologies have been tested using identical pharmacological pretreatment manipulations.

Cues↗