1986
DOI: 10.1007/bf00178502
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of mecamylamine on human cigarette smoking and subjective ratings

Abstract: Multiple measures of cigarette smoking, subjective effect and physiological effect were collected during 90-min test sessions in normal volunteers. Before sessions subjects received oral doses of mecamylamine (2.5, 5.0, 10, 20 mg) or placebo. Each dose and placebo was given three times in a randomized block sequence. Mecamylamine increased several measures of cigarette smoking, including number of cigarettes, number of puffs per cigarette, and expired air carbon monoxide level. Mecamylamine also produced modes… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
39
3
2

Year Published

1996
1996
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
5
39
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The effect of mecamylamine could not be readily attributed to its nonspecific impairment of general locomotor activity since it only inhibited responding at the active lever, while inactive lever responding remained unchanged (slightly but not significantly higher than saline group), and previous observations have shown that this agent did not influence operant responding for food reinforcement at the dose used in the present study (Mansbach et al 2000). In light of the fact that mecamylamine has been found in animal studies to completely inhibit the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine (Mansbach et al 2000;Varvel et al 1999) and decrease nicotine intake in the nicotine self-administration paradigms (e.g., Corrigall and Coen 1989;Donny et al 1999;Glick et al 2002;Watkins et al 1999) and in human behavioral pharmacological tests to reduce the desire to smoke (Rose et al 1989) and satisfaction derived from smoking (Lundahl et al 2000;Nemeth-Coslett et al 1986), the present finding may suggest clinical potential of this agent for, in addition to its smoking-attenuating effect, treatment and prevention of relapse to smoking in abstinent smokers. However, since nicotinic neurotransmission has been implicated in mediating processes of cognitive attention, associative learning, and memory (Blokland 1995;Olausson et al 2003;Rezvani and Levin 2001), it is possible that the reinstatement-attenuation by mecamylamine can be due to its general inhibitory effect on the conditioned goal-directed responses rather than a specific action on cue-induced nicotineseeking.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…The effect of mecamylamine could not be readily attributed to its nonspecific impairment of general locomotor activity since it only inhibited responding at the active lever, while inactive lever responding remained unchanged (slightly but not significantly higher than saline group), and previous observations have shown that this agent did not influence operant responding for food reinforcement at the dose used in the present study (Mansbach et al 2000). In light of the fact that mecamylamine has been found in animal studies to completely inhibit the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine (Mansbach et al 2000;Varvel et al 1999) and decrease nicotine intake in the nicotine self-administration paradigms (e.g., Corrigall and Coen 1989;Donny et al 1999;Glick et al 2002;Watkins et al 1999) and in human behavioral pharmacological tests to reduce the desire to smoke (Rose et al 1989) and satisfaction derived from smoking (Lundahl et al 2000;Nemeth-Coslett et al 1986), the present finding may suggest clinical potential of this agent for, in addition to its smoking-attenuating effect, treatment and prevention of relapse to smoking in abstinent smokers. However, since nicotinic neurotransmission has been implicated in mediating processes of cognitive attention, associative learning, and memory (Blokland 1995;Olausson et al 2003;Rezvani and Levin 2001), it is possible that the reinstatement-attenuation by mecamylamine can be due to its general inhibitory effect on the conditioned goal-directed responses rather than a specific action on cue-induced nicotineseeking.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…The lack of effects of MEC are consistent with a previous report that acute MEC administration at doses of up to 20 mg/day did not precipitate tobacco withdrawal in dependent cigarette smokers (Eissenberg et al, 1996), and extends the lack of MEC pre-treatment effects on cigarette withdrawal and craving to a subchronic (e.g., six doses over a three day period) dosing paradigm, in which MEC plasma levels presumably reached steady state (the half-life of MEC is ∼10 hours; Young et al, 2001). Several studies in cigarette smokers have demonstrated that acute doses of MEC in the dose range used in the present study (5-10 mg/day) increase cigarette smoking (Stolerman et al, 1973;Nemeth-Coslett et al, 1986;Pomerleau et al, 1987;Rose et al, 2001), suggesting a compensatory increase in smoking behavior in the presence of a nicotinic antagonist. At the first testing session (Day 2AM), SS and CS had received three doses of MEC, but there was no alteration in the amount of cigarettes smoked or in baseline nicotine or cotinine levels.…”
Section: Effect Of Mec Pre-treatment On Smoking Indices and Psychiatrsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Mecamylamine was selected as the nAChR antagonist because it has been reported to completely inhibit the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine (Mansbach et al, 2000;Varvel et al, 1999) and decrease nicotine self-administration in animals (Corrigall and Coen, 1989;Donny et al, 1999;Shoaib et al, 1997;Watkins et al, 1999). In humans, mecamylamine reduces self-reported nicotine-liking and estimates of dose strength following nicotine infusion (Rose et al, 1995), the desire to smoke (Rose et al, 1989), and satisfaction derived from smoking (Lundahl et al, 2000;Nemeth-Coslett et al, 1986;Rose et al, 1994). Pretreatment with this agent (0.5-2.0 mg/kg) before behavioral tests dose-dependently attenuated response-reinstatement induced by presentation of the nicotine-associated cue.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%