Abstract
Rationale
Abuse of mixtures of stimulants and opioids (“speedball”) is common. Although this combination has been studied in the laboratory, conclusions about the nature of the cocaine/opioid interaction have been mixed.
Objectives
The objectives of the present experiment were to allow monkeys to self-administer mixtures of cocaine and the μ opioid agonist remifentanil and to quantify the interaction using the isobolographic approach. Our hypothesis was that the drugs would be super-additive in their reinforcing effects.
Materials and methods
Rhesus monkeys (n = 5) prepared with i.v. catheters were allowed to self-administer cocaine or saline under a progressive-ratio schedule. When responding was stable, doses of cocaine or remifentanil were made available in test sessions. Next, mixtures of doses of the drugs were tested over a range of doses in 1:1, 1:2, and 2:1 ratios of their ED50s. Results were analyzed using isobolographic techniques.
Results
Both drugs alone and all drug mixtures functioned as positive reinforcers in a dose-related manner. Cocaine maintained more responding at maximum than did remifentanil, i.e., was a stronger reinforcer. The experimentally determined equi-effective dose for the 1:1 and 1:2 cocaine/remifentanil mixtures tended toward super-additivity, but the difference from additivity did not achieve statistical significance. The 2:1 mixture was super-additive. Maximum responding maintained by the mixtures was higher than that maintained by remifentanil but not different from cocaine.
Conclusions
Combinations of cocaine and remifentanil can be additive or super-additive as positive reinforcers, depending on proportions of each. Interactions between stimulants and opioids may contribute to the abuse of these mixtures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Duvauchelle CL, Sapoznik T, Kornetsky C (1998) The synergistic effects of combining cocaine and heroin (“speedball”) using a progressive-ratio schedule of drug reinforcement. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 61:297–302
Grabovsky Y, Tallarida RJ (2004) Isobolographic analysis for combinations of a full and partial agonist: curved isoboles. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 310:981–986
Griffiths RR, Findley JD, Brady JV, Dolan-Gutcher K, Robinson WW (1975) Comparison of progressive-ratio performance maintained by cocaine, methylphenidate and secobarbital. Psychopharmacologia 43:81–83
Griffiths RR, Brady JV, Snell JD (1978) Progressive-ratio performance maintained by drug infusions: comparison of cocaine, diethylpropion, chlorphentermine, and fenfluramine. Psychopharmacology 56:5–13
Hemby SE, Smith JE Dworkin SI (1996) The effects of eticlopride and naltrexone on responding maintained by food, cocaine, heroin and cocaine/heroin combinations in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 277:1247–1258
Hoffmeister F (1979) Progressive-ratio performance in the rhesus monkey maintained by opiate infusions. Psychopharmacology 62:181–86
Ko MC, Terner J, Hursh S, Woods JH, Winger G (2002) Relative reinforcing effects of three opioids with different durations of action. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 301:698–704
Leri F, Bruneau J, Stewart J (2003) Understanding polydrug use: review of heroin and cocaine co-use. Addiction 98:7–22
Loewe O (1953) The problem of synergism and antagonism of combined drugs. Arzneim-Forsch 3:285–290
Mattox AJ, Thompson SS, Carroll ME (1997) Smoked heroin and cocaine base (speedball) combinations in rhesus monkeys. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 5:113–118
Mello NK, Negus SS, Lukas SE, Mendelson JH, Sholar JW, Driese J (1995) A primate model of polydrug abuse: cocaine and heroin combinations. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 274:1325–1337
Negus SS (2005) Interactions between the reinforcing effects of cocaine and heroin in a drug-vs-foot choice procedure in rhesus monkeys: a dose-addition analysis. Psychopharmacology 180:115–124
Ranaldi R, Munn E (1998) Polydrug self-administration in rats: cocaine–heroin is more reinforcing than cocaine alone. Neuroreport 9:2463–2466
Rowlett JK, Woolverton WL (1997) Self-administration of cocaine and heroin combinations by rhesus monkeys under a progressive-ratio schedule. Psychopharmacology 133:363–371
Rowlett JK, Massey BW, Kleven MS, Woolverton WL (1996) Parametric analysis of cocaine self-administration under a progressive-ratio schedule in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 125:361–370
Rowlett JK, Wilcox KM, Woolverton WL (1998) Self-administration of cocaine–heroin combinations by rhesus monkeys: antagonism by naltrexone. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 286:61–69
Rowlett JK, Rodefer JS, Spealman RD (2005) Self-administration of cocaine–opioid combinations by rhesus monkeys: evaluation of the role of m receptor efficacy using labor supply analysis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 312:1289–1297
Rowlett JK, Platt DM, Wei-Dong Y, Spealman RD (2007) Modulation of heroin and cocaine self-administration by dopamine D1- and D2-like receptor agonists in rhesus monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 321:1135–1143
Smith JE, Co C, Coller MD, Hemby SE, Martin TJ (2006) Self-administered heroin and cocaine combinations in the rat: additive reinforcing effects-supra-additive effects on nucleus accumbens extracellular dopamine. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:139–150
Tallarida RJ (2000) Drug synergism and dose–effect data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton
Tallarida RJ (2006) An overview of drug combination analysis with isobolograms. Perspectives in pharmacology. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 319:1–7
Tallarida RJ (2007) Interactions between drugs and occupied receptors. Pharmacol Ther 113:197–209
Wang Z, Woolverton WL (2007) Self-administration of cocaine–antihistamine combinations: super-additive reinforcing effects. Eur J Pharmacol 557:159–160
Wang NS, Brown VL, Grabowski J, Meisch RA (2001) Reinforcement by orally delivered methadone, cocaine, and methadone–cocaine combinations in rhesus monkeys: are the combinations better reinforcers? Psychopharmacology 156:63–72
Ward SJ, Morgan D, Roberts DCS (2005) Comparison of the reinforcing effects of cocaine and cocaine/heroin combinations under progressive ratio and choice schedules in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:286–295
Wee S, Carroll FI, Woolverton WL (2006) A reduced rate of in vivo dopamine transporter binding is associated with lower relative reinforcing efficacy of stimulants. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:351–362
Wessinger WD (1986) Approaches to the study of drug interactions in behavioral pharmacology. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 10:103–110
Wilcox KM, Rowlett JK, Paul IA, Ordway GA, Woolverton WL (2000) On the relationship between the dopamine transporter and the reinforcing effects of local anesthetics in rhesus monkeys: Practical and theoretical concerns. Psychopharmacology 153:139–147
Winger G (1993) Fixed-ratio and time-out changes on behavior maintained by cocaine or methohexital in rhesus monkeys. Exp Clin Psychopharm 1:142–153
Winger G, Galuska CM, Hursh SR, Woods JH (2006) Relative reinforcing effects of cocaine, remifentanil, and their combination in rhesus monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 318:223–229
Woolverton WL (1987) Analysis of drug interactions in behavioral pharmacology. In: Thompson T, Dews PB, Barrett JE (eds) Neurobehavioral pharmacology Vol. 6. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp. 275–302
Woolverton WL, Wang Z, Vasterling T, Carroll FI, Tallarida R (2008) Self-administration of drug mixtures by monkeys: combining drugs with comparable mechanisms of action. Psychopharmacology 196:575–582
Acknowledgements
All animal-use procedures were approved by the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s Animal Care and Use Committee and were in accordance with the National Research Council’s Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996). The authors have no financial relationship with the organization that sponsored this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse grants R01-DA019471 and K05-DA15343 (W.L.W.)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Woolverton, W.L., Wang, Z., Vasterling, T. et al. Self-administration of cocaine–remifentanil mixtures by monkeys: an isobolographic analysis. Psychopharmacology 198, 387–394 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-008-1152-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-008-1152-5