Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preclinical assessment of abuse liability of drugs

  • Pain and Inflammation
  • Published:
Agents and Actions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies that are used in preclinical assessment of the liability of a drug to become an abuse problem are reviewed. These studies examine the capacity of a drug to produce physiological dependence or to function as a reinforcer. Studies that examine physiological dependence by assessing whether a drug reverses signs of withdrawal from a standard drug are rapid, reliable and inexpensive methods for determining if a drug produces dependence of a type similar to the standard. However, these techniques will not determine if the drug produces a unique type of dependence. Studies that examine whether a drug functions as a reinforcer have been predictive of whether a drug will be abused in human populations. Attempts to rank order drugs with respect to their efficacy as reinforcers, however, are not predictive of measures of extent of abuse in human populations. Since abuse of drugs in human populations is a function of societal variables in addition to pharmacological factors, it is unlikely that preclinical assessments will ever yield more than qualitative information on abuse liability of drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. C. K. Himmelsbach,The effects of certain chemical changes on the addiction characteristics of drugs of the morphine, codeine series, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.71, 41–48 (1941).

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. A. Deneau,An analysis of the factors influencing the development of physical dependence to narcotic analgesics in the rhesus monkey with methods for predicting physical dependence liability in man, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Michigan 1956.

  3. T. Yanagita,An experimental framework for evaluation of dependence liability of various types of drugs in monkeys, Bulletin on Narcotics25, 57–64 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. L. Tatum, M. H. Seevers and K. H. Collins,Morphine addiction and its physiological interpretation based on experimental evidences, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.36, 447–475 (1929).

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. G. Teiger,Induction of physical dependence on morphine, codeine and meperidine in the rat by continuous infusion, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.190, 408–415 (1974).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. W. R. Martin, C. G. Eades, J. A. Thompson, R. E. Huppler and P. E. Gilbert,The effects of morphine- and nalorphinelike drugs in the nondependent and morphine-dependent chronic spinal dog, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.197, 517–532 (1976).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. P. E. Gilbert and W. R. Martin,The effects of morphine and nalorphine-like drugs in the nondependent, morphine-dependent and cyclazocine-dependent chronic spinal dog, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.198, 66–82 (1976).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. G. A. Deneau and S. Weiss, A substitution technique for determining barbiturate-like physiological dependence capacity in the dog, Pharmacopsychiatrie, Neuro-psychopharmakologic1, 270–275 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Yanagita,Dependence-producing effects of anxiolytics. In:Psychotropic Agents, Handbook of Experimental pharmacology, Vol. 55, part 2, (Ed. F. Hoffmeister) pp. 395–406, Springer Verlag, New York 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. H. Woods, J. L. Katz and G. Winger,Abuse liability of benzodiazepines, Pharmacological Reviews, in press (1987).

  11. A. M. Young, H. H. Swain and J. H. Woods,Comparison of opioid agonists in maintaining responding and in suppressing morphine withdrawal in rhesus monkeys, Psychopharmacology74, 329–335 (1981).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. C. E. Johanson, R. L. Balster,A summary of the results of a drug self-administration study using substitution procedures in rhesus monkeys, Bulletin on Narcotics30, 43–54 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. V. Brady and R. R. Griffiths,Drug-maintained perfdrmance and the analysis of stimulant reinforcing effects. In:Cocaine and Other Stimulants, (Eds. E. H. Ellinwood, Jr. and M. M. Kilbey) pp. 599–613, Plenum Publ., New York 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  14. C. Iglauer and J. H. Woods,Concurrent performances: Reinforcement by different doses of intravenous cocaine in rhesus monkeys, J. Exp. Analysis Behav22, 179–196 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. E. Johanson and C. R. Schuster,A choice procedure for drug reinforcers: Cocaine and methylphenidate in the rhesus monkey, J Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.193, 676–688 (1975).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. M. E. Llewellyn, C. Iglauer and J. H. Woods,Relative reinforcer magnitude under a nonindependent concurrent schedule of cocaine reinforcement in rhesus monkeys, J. Exp. Analysis Behav.25, 81–91 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  17. C. E. Johanson and C. R. Schuster,A comparison of cocaine and diethylpropion under two different schedules of drug presentation. In:Cocaine and Other Stimulants, (Eds. E. H. Ellinwood, Jr. a and M. M. Kilbey) pp. 545–569, Plenum Publ., New York 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  18. C. E. Johanson and T. Aigner,comparison of the reinforcing properties of cocaine and procaine in rhesus monkeys, Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.15, 49–53 (1981).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. W. L. Woolverton and C. E. Johanson,Preference in rhesus monkeys given a choice between cocaine and d,l-cathinone, J. Exp. Analysis Behav.41, 35–43 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. L. Balster and C. R. Schuster,A preference procedure that compares efficacy of different intravenous drug reinforcers in the rhesus monkey. In:Cocaine and Other Stimulants. (Eds. E. H. Ellinwood, Jr. and M. M. Kilbey) pp. 571–584, Plenum Publ., New York 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  21. W. Hodos and G. Kalman,Effects of increment size and reinforcer volume on progressive ratio performance, J. Exp. Analysis Behav.6, 387–392 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. R. Griffiths, J. V. Brady and J. D. Snell,Progressive-ratio performance maintained by drug infusions: Comparison of cocaine, diethylpropion, chlorphentermine, and fenfluramine, Psychopharmacology56, 5–13 (1978).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. M. E. Risner and D. L. Silcox,Psychostimulant self-administration by beagle dogs in a progressive-ratio paradigm, Psychopharmacology75, 25–30 (1981).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. M. E. Risner and S. R. Goldberg,A comparison of nicotine and cocaine self-administration in the dog: Fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules of intravenous drug infusion, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.224, 319–326 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. D. Risner and E. J. Cone,Intravenous self-administration of fencamfamine and cocaine by beagle dogs under fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement, Drug and Alcohol Dependence17, 93–102 (1986).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. R. R. Griffiths, L. D. Bradford and J. V. Brady,Progressive ratio and fixed ratio schedules of cocaine-maintained responding in baboons, Psychopharmacology65, 125–126 (1979).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. J. D. Miller and I. H. Cisin,Highlights from the national survey on drug abuse, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 83-1277, 1983.

  28. L. D. Johnston, P. M. O'Malley and J. G. Bachman,Use of licit and illicit drugs by america's high school students, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 85-1394, 1985.

  29. R. R. Griffiths and R. L. Balster,Opioids: Similarity between evaluations of subjective effects and animal self-administration results, Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.25, 611–617 (1979).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. C. R. Schuster, M. W. Fischman and C. E. Johanson,Internal stimulus control and subjectíve effects of drugs. In:Behavioral Pharmacology of Human Drug Dependence. NIDA Research Monograph No. 37, (Eds. T. Thomson and C. E. Johanson) pp. 116–129, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. E. Henningfield, R. Nemeth-Coslett, J. L. Katz and S. R. Goldberg, Intravenous cocaine self-administration by human volunteers: Second-order schedules of reinforcement. In:Problems of Drug Dependence. NIDA Research Monograph No. 76 (Ed. L. S. Harris) pp. 266–273, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  32. S. R. Goldberg, C. W. Schindler and J. L. Katz,The influence of environmental stimuli on responding under secondorder schedules of morphine self-administration or food presentation, Pharmacologist29, 201 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  33. A. Wikler,Clinical and social aspects of marihuana intoxication, Archs. Gen. Psychiat.23, 320–325 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Preclinical Pharmacology Branch, NIDA Addiction Research Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    J. L. Katz & S. R. Goldberg

Authors
  1. J. L. Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. R. Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katz, J.L., Goldberg, S.R. Preclinical assessment of abuse liability of drugs. Agents and Actions 23, 18–26 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01967174

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01967174

Keywords

Search

Navigation