Search

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 5-period crossover study in 49 healthy subjects with a history of light (occasional) recreational stimulant use, to evaluate the abuse-related subjective effects of oral osmotic-controlled extended-release methylphenidate with comparable doses of immediate-release methylphenidate. Healthy subjects with a history of light recreational stimulant use were enrolled in the study if they demonstrated a positive response to a 20-mg dose of d-amphetamine and a negative placebo response. Enrolled subjects received single doses of placebo, 54 and 108 mg osmotic-controlled extended-release methylphenidate, and 50 and 90 mg immediate-release methylphenidate. For each treatment, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety were assessed for 24 hours. Subjective data were collected through standard questionnaires and visual analog scales for positive, stimulant, negative, and other effects. Immediate-release and osmotic-controlled extended-release methylphenidate produced expected plasma concentration-time profiles of d-methylphenidate. Both doses of immediate-release methylphenidate (50 and 90 mg) produced statistically significantly higher subjective effects (eg, positive, stimulant) with respect to placebo for all measures. The higher osmotic-controlled extended-release methylphenidate dose of 108 mg also produced statistically significant differences from placebo for most measures. However, the most commonly prescribed therapeutic dose of osmotic-controlled extended-release methylphenidate (54 mg) did not produce significant differences from placebo for most measures. In addition, for comparable dose levels, osmotic-controlled extended-release methylphenidate produced lower positive and stimulant subjective effects than immediate-release methylphenidate, and low-dose immediate-release methylphenidate (50 mg) produced greater subjective effects than high-dose osmotic-controlled extended-release methylphenidate, with many effects demonstrating statistically significant differences. These data support the hypothesis that a formulation can modulate abuse potential by controlling the rate and extent of drug delivery.

The primary objective of this study was to determine if the abuse liability of methylphenidate is governed by formulation differences that affect rates of drug delivery. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover study, subjects with a history of recreational drug use received single oral doses of placebo, 60 mg of immediate-release methylphenidate (IR) and 108 mg of extended-release methylphenidate (osmotic release oral system [OROS]). Over 24 hours after dosing, blood was collected to determine plasma concentrations of methylphenidate, and subjects completed subjective assessments of abuse liability (Addiction Research Center Inventory, Drug Rating Questionnaire-Subject, and Subjective Drug Value). The abuse-related subjective effects of IR and OROS methylphenidate were statistically significantly different from placebo, confirming the overall validity of the study. Although a higher dose of OROS methylphenidate was used compared with IR methylphenidate (108 mg vs 60 mg), subjective effects were consistently lower for OROS compared with IR methylphenidate (statistically significant for 3 of 6 measures of positive effects), particularly at early time points. In general, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters were correlated from a poor to modest degree, with greater correlations observed for IR methylphenidate. In addition, a post hoc "qualification" method was developed, which demonstrated that pharmacological qualification might improve the assessment of subjective effects. Although requiring epidemiological confirmation, the results suggest that OROS methylphenidate, with its characteristic slow ascending plasma concentration profile, may have lower abuse potential. This conclusion is reflected by lower subjective responses during early hours as compared with the IR formulation with its rapid drug delivery and accompanying greater subjective effects.

Objective: The abuse potential of methylphenidate has been related to the drug's capacity to produce a rapid onset of blockade of the presynaptic dopamine transporter in the brain. An oral once-a-day osmotic controlled-release formulation of methylphenidate produces a more gradual rise in plasma methylphenidate concentration, compared with immediate-release methylphenidate. The authors hypothesized that osmotic-release methylphenidate would also produce a slower onset of blockade of the presynaptic dopamine transporter and would be associated with a lower risk for detection and likeability, compared to immediate-release methylphenidate., Method: Twelve healthy adults were randomly assigned to receive single doses of immediate-release methylphenidate or osmotic-release methylphenidate. Doses predicted to produce equivalent maximum concentration (C(max)) values were selected (40 mg of immediate-release methylphenidate and 90 mg of osmotic-release methylphenidate). Plasma d-methylphenidate levels and responses to detection/likeability questionnaire items were obtained hourly for 10 hours after administration of methylphenidate on two separate occasions for each subject. Dopamine transporter receptor occupancies were measured at hours 1, 3, 5, and 7 by using a carbon-11-labeled imaging agent (Altropane) and positron emission tomography., Results: Despite similar C(max) values for both formulations, osmotic-release methylphenidate was associated with a longer time to maximum concentration, longer time to maximum CNS dopamine transporter occupancy, and no detection/likeability, compared with immediate-release methylphenidate., Conclusions: The findings suggest that the abuse potential of oral methylphenidate is strongly influenced by the rate of delivery and not solely by the magnitude of plasma concentration or brain transporter occupancy. These results advance understanding of the underlying central effects of methylphenidate in humans and identify a potentially less abusable methylphenidate formulation.