A Retrospective Review of Supratherapeutic Modafinil Exposures

Modafinil is a non-amphetamine wakefulness-promoting agent used for the treatment of various sleep disorders characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness. There is little information in the medical literature with respect to supratherapeutic doses of this medication. We performed a retrospective review of the California Poison Control System database for all cases of single-substance ingestion of modafinil with follow-up to a known outcome for the time period 1998–2008. Data collected included age, gender, dose ingested, clinical effects, and medical outcome. There were a total of 87 patients, 53 (61%) of which were female. Patient ages ranged from 1.25 to 72 years with a mean of 30 years; 17 (20%) patients were aged 6 years or less. Thirty-three (38%) were intentional overdoses. Most commonly reported effects were tachycardia (n = 23), agitation (n = 14), anxiety (n = 11), headache (n = 8), hypertension (n = 6), dystonia/tremor (n = 6), and dizziness (n = 5). Forty-nine patients (56%) were managed at home, and 38 (44%) were managed in a healthcare setting. Therapies administered included activated charcoal (n = 8), benzodiazepines (n = 7), antihistamines (n = 2), intravenous fluids (n = 2), haloperidol (n = 2), and beta-blockers (n = 1). Effects were classified as none (n = 22), minor (n = 54), and moderate (n = 11). No major effects and no deaths occurred. Effects of modafinil overdose appear to be mild in most cases, with tachycardia and CNS symptoms predominating. Clinically significant effects requiring treatment occurred in a small number of patients

Outsmarted by nooptropics? An investigation into the thermal degradation of modafinil, modafinic acid, adrafinil, CRL-40,940 and CRL-40,941 in the GC injector: formation of 1,1,2,2-tetraphenylethane and its tetra fluoro analog.

2-[(Diphenylmethyl)sulfinyl]acetamide (modafinil) is commonly prescribed for the treatment of narcolepsy and increasing popularity and off-label use as a cognitive enhancer resulted in a reputation as an intelligence boosting ‘wonder drug’. Common alternatives available from online shops and other retail outlets include 2-[(diphenylmethyl)sulfinyl]-N-hydroxyacetamide (adrafinil), 2-{[bis(4- fluorophenyl)methyl]sulfinyl}acetamide (CRL-40,940), 2-{[bis(4- fluorophenyl)methyl]sulfinyl}-N-hydroxyacetamide (CRL-40,941) and N-methyl-4,4-difluoro-modafinil (modafiendz), respectively. Gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is a common tool used in forensic and clinical analysis but there is a potential for inducing analysis-related ambiguities. This study reports on the thermal degradation of modafinil, modafinic acid, adrafinil, CRL-40,940 and CRL- 40,941 due to exposure to the heated GC injection port dissolved in a variety of solvents. Key degradation products common to modafinil, modafinic acid, adrafinil analysis included diphenylmethanol and 1,1,2,2-tetraphenylethane (TPE), the latter of which was verified by its synthesis and characterization by x-ray crystallography. The investigated compounds were also characterized by 1H and 13C NMR. Diphenylmethane and thiobenzophenone were also identified in some instances. TPE formation was suggested to involve the generation of a benzhydrylium ion and its reaction with the sulfoxide oxygen of the parent compound to give an oxysulfonium intermediate. Correspondingly, the fluorinated TPE analog was formed during heat-induced degradation of modafiendz, CRL-40,940 and CRL-40,941, respectively. When a mixture of modafinil (non-fluorinated) and modafiendz (fluorinated) were subjected to GC analysis, 4,4'-(2,2-diphenylethane-1,1-diyl)bis(fluorobenzene) was detected as a third cross reaction product in addition to the two expected TPE analogs. These observations served as a reminder that the seemingly straightforward implementation of GC-MS analysis can lead to challenges during routine analysis

Public understandings of addiction: where do neurobiological explanations fit?

Developments in the field of neuroscience, according to its proponents, offer the prospect of an enhanced understanding and treatment of addicted persons. Consequently, its advocates consider that improving public understanding of addiction neuroscience is a desirable aim. Those critical of neuroscientific approaches, however, charge that it is a totalising, reductive perspective–one that ignores other known causes in favour of neurobiological explanations. Sociologist Nikolas Rose has argued that neuroscience, and its associated technologies, are coming to dominate cultural models to the extent that 'we' increasingly understand ourselves as 'neurochemical selves'. Drawing on 55 qualitative interviews conducted with members of the Australian public residing in the Greater Brisbane area, we challenge both the 'expectational discourses' of neuroscientists and the criticisms of its detractors. Members of the public accepted multiple perspectives on the causes of addiction, including some elements of neurobiological explanations. Their discussions of addiction drew upon a broad range of philosophical, sociological, anthropological, psychological and neurobiological vocabularies, suggesting that they synthesised newer technical understandings, such as that offered by neuroscience, with older ones. Holding conceptual models that acknowledge the complexity of addiction aetiology into which new information is incorporated suggests that the impact of neuroscientific discourse in directing the public's beliefs about addiction is likely to be more limited than proponents or opponents of neuroscience expect

Views of addiction neuroscientists and clinicians on the clinical impact of a ‘Brain Disease Model of Addiction’

Addiction is increasingly described as a "chronic and relapsing brain disease". The potential impact of the brain disease model on the treatment of addiction or addicted individuals' treatment behaviour remains uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study to examine: (i) the extent to which leading Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians accept the brain disease view of addiction; and (ii) their views on the likely impacts of this view on addicted individuals' beliefs and behaviour. Thirty-one Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians (10 females and 21 males; 16 with clinical experience and 15 with no clinical experience) took part in 1 h semi-structured interviews. Most addiction neuroscientists and clinicians did not uncritically support the use of brain disease model of addiction. Most were cautious about the potential for adverse impacts on individuals' recovery and motivation to enter treatment. While some recognised the possibility that the brain disease model of addiction may provide a rationale for addicted persons to seek treatment and motivate behaviour change, Australian addiction neuroscientist and clinicians do not assume that messages about "diseased brains" will always lead to increased treatment-seeking and reduced drug use. Research is needed on how neuroscience research could be used in ways that optimise positive outcomes for addicted persons

On the biomedicalization of alcoholism

The shift in the prevailing view of alcoholism from a moral paradigm towards a biomedical paradigm is often characterized as a form of biomedicalization. We will examine and critique three reasons offered for the claim that viewing alcoholism as a disease is morally problematic. The first is that the new conceptualization of alcoholism as a chronic brain disease will lead to individualization, e.g., a too narrow focus on the individual person, excluding cultural and social dimensions of alcoholism. The second claim is that biomedicalization will lead to stigmatization and discrimination for both alcoholics and people who are at risk of becoming alcoholics. The third claim is that as a result of the biomedical point of view, the autonomy and responsibility of alcoholics and possibly even persons at risk may be unjustly restricted. Our conclusion is that the claims against the biomedical conceptualization of alcoholism as a chronic brain disease are neither specific nor convincing. Not only do some of these concerns also apply to the traditional moral model; above that they are not strong enough to justify the rejection of the new biomedical model altogether. The focus in the scientific and public debate should not be on some massive “biomedicalization objection” but on the various concerns underlying what is framed in terms of the biomedicalization of alcoholism

Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered Interventions for Cocaine and Alcohol Abuse among Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>To determine whether the additional interventions to standard care are cost-effective in addressing cocaine and alcohol abuse at 4 months (4 M) and 12 months (12 M) from baseline.</p> <h3>Method</h3><p>We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial with three arms: (1) NIDA's Standard intervention (SI); (2) SI plus a Well Woman Exam (WWE); and, (3) SI, WWE, plus four Educational Sessions (4ES).</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>To obtain an additional cocaine abstainer, WWE compared to SI cost $7,223 at 4 M and$3,611 at 12 M. Per additional alcohol abstainer, WWE compared to SI cost $3,611 and$7,223 at 4 M and 12 M, respectively. At 12 M, 4ES was dominated (more costly and less effective) by WWE for abstinence outcomes.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>To our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis simultaneously examining cocaine and alcohol abuse in women. Depending on primary outcomes sought and priorities of policy makers, peer-delivered interventions can be a cost-effective way to address the needs of this growing, underserved population.</p> <h3>Trial Registration</h3><p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01235091">NCT01235091</a></p> </div

A Phase 1 Trial of pharmacologic interactions between transdermal selegiline and a 4-hour cocaine infusion

BackgroundThe selective MAO-B inhibitor selegiline has been evaluated in clinical trials as a potential medication for the treatment of cocaine dependence. This study evaluated the safety of and pharmacologic interactions between 7 days of transdermal selegiline dosed with patches (Selegiline Transdermal System, STS) that deliver 6 mg/24 hours and 2.5 mg/kg of cocaine administered over 4 hours.MethodsTwelve nondependent cocaine-experienced subjects received deuterium-labeled cocaine-d5 intravenously (IV) 0.5 mg/kg over 10 minutes followed by 2 mg/kg over 4 hours before and after one week of transdermal selegiline 6 mg/24 hours. Plasma and urine were collected for analysis of selegiline, cocaine, catecholamine and metabolite concentrations. Pharmacodynamic measures were obtained.ResultsSelegiline did not change cocaine pharmacokinetic parameters. Selegiline administration increased phenylethylamine (PEA) urinary excretion and decreased urinary MHPG-sulfate concentration after cocaine when compared to cocaine alone. No serious adverse effects occurred with the combination of selegiline and cocaine, and cocaine-induced physiological effects were unchanged after selegiline. Only 1 peak subjective cocaine effects rating changed, and only a few subjective ratings decreased across time after selegiline.ConclusionNo pharmacological interaction occurred between selegiline and a substantial dose of intravenous cocaine, suggesting the combination will be safe in pharmacotherapy trials. Selegiline produced few changes in subjective response to the cocaine challenge perhaps because of some psychoactive neurotransmitters changing in opposite directions