Physiological and Psychological Effects of ±‐propranolol, +‐propranolol and Diazepam in Induced Anxiety

1 In a double-blind cross-over study the effects of propranolol (80 mg) and of lorazepam (1 or 2.5 mg) were assessed in normal student volunteers using a number of performance tests and mood-rating and bodily symptom questionnaires. Drug effects on experimentally-induced anxiety were also studied. 2 The high dose of lorazepam impaired performance in digit-symbol substitution, symbol copying and verbal learning tests, and increased subjects' ratings of dizziness. Both lorazepam and propranolol increased simple reaction time. Lorazepam but not propranolol increased ratings of sedation. 3 Although the stressor increased subjects' ratings of anxiety, neither drug altered anxiety ratings. 4 Propranolol decreased and lorazepam increased subjects' pulse. These changes were not reflected in subjects' self-ratings -lorazepam caused a reduction in ratings of palpitations. 5 The results suggest that if administered acutely, neither drug is beneficial in the treatment of short-term anxiety associated with intellectual stress.

Section: Pulsementioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Pulsementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of the effects of lorazepam with those of propranolol on experimentally‐induced anxiety and performance.

File¹,

Lister²

1985

“…Impaired tagonists, but, though it is likely that these drugs performance has been reported after single doses have such effects, their severity may be minimal (Bryan et al, 1974;Glaister et al, 1973; Landauer compared with the benzodiazepines. Indeed, et al, 1979;Salem & McDevitt, 1983), while light-headedness, visual and auditory halluci-other studies have failed to show such effects nations, sleep disturbances, vivid dreams and (Ogle etal., 1976;Turner & Hedges, 1973; Tyrer changes in mood and affect have been related to & Lader, 1974). long-term treatment (Greenblatt & Shader, 1972; The question of central effects with 13-adrenoceptor antagonists is an important one as these drugs are commonly prescribed in hypertension and ischaemic heart disease when the patients continue to work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central effects of beta‐adrenoceptor antagonists. I‐Performance and subjective assessments of mood.

Currie

Lewis

McDevitt

et al. 1988

1 Central effects of the P-adrenoceptor antagonists, propranolol (40, 80 and 160 mg) and atenolol (50 and 100 mg) were studied in 12 healthy male subjects. Two placebo ingestions and an active control (oxazepam 15 mg) were included. Single doses were administered double-blind at 11.00 h, and assessments of performance and subjective feelings were made before, 2 h and 4 h after ingestion. 2 Performance was measured using letter cancellation, digit symbol substitution, continuous attention, choice reaction time, finger tapping, short term and immediate memory, critical flicker fusion and two flash fusion. Subjective feelings were assessed using twelve visual-analogue scales.3 Oxazepam impaired performance at letter cancellation (P < 0.001), digit symbol substitution (P < 0.05), continuous attention (P < 0.001), immediate recall (P < 0.05) and finger tapping (P < 0.05), but neither of the 3-adrenoceptor antagonists affected these measures. Propranolol (40 and 160 mg) also impaired short term memory (P < 0.05), though it was not possible to establish this effect with atenolol.4 Subjective alertness was reduced by oxazepam (P < 0.01) and atenolol (P < 0.05), while propranolol (40 mg) reduced anxiety (P < 0.01) and propranolol (80 mg) impaired ability to concentrate (P < 0.05). 5 The results suggest that both lipophilic and hydrophilic antagonists modify the central nervous system, though impairment may be difficult to establish with conventional tests.The observations on memory and alertness suggest that the central effect of P-adrenoceptor antagonists may be subtle. Keywords ,B-adrenoceptor antagonists propranolol atenolol performance IntroductionThere is uncertainty concerning the nature of the Fleming, 1978). However, presently available possible central effects of 1-adrenoceptor an-information is difficult to evaluate. Impaired tagonists, but, though it is likely that these drugs performance has been reported after single doses have such effects, their severity may be minimal (Bryan et al., 1974;Glaister et al., 1973; Landauer compared with the benzodiazepines. Indeed, et al., 1979;Salem & McDevitt, 1983), while light-headedness, visual and auditory halluci-other studies have failed to show such effects nations, sleep disturbances, vivid dreams and (Ogle etal., 1976;Turner & Hedges, 1973 In this paper we report the observations on various aspects of performance as well as subjective assessments of well being and mood, and in the following paper we deal with the findings on the electroencephalogram and body sway. Methods Experimental designTwelve healthy male volunteers, aged between 19 and 29 years, participated in the study which was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee. None was taking any concurrent medication and each was required to abstain from alcohol for 24 h before each study period. No caffeinecontaining beverages were permitted during the study days.Performance was tested in individual, soundproofed cubicles. The intensity of lighting could be adjusted to permit dark adaptation before measurem...

“…The two enantiomers, (+)-propranolol and (-)-propranolol share some pharmacological actions whereas for others they show a high degree of stereospecificity (for example, the (-)-propranolol is 60-100 times more potent in blocking the inotropic and chronotropic responses to isoprenaline in dogs) (Barrett & Cullum, 1968). In order to evaluate the relative contribution of the different actions to the overall pharmacological effect, many authors have studied the enantiomers separately, both in experimental (Anlezark et al, 1979;Jaillon et al, 1980) and clinical situations (Tyrer & Lader, 1974;Stensrud & Sjaastad, 1976). Concomitantly the pharmacokinetics (George et al, 1972;Kawashima & Ishikawa, 1980;Tawara et al, 1981;Jackman et al, 1981;Silber et al, 1982) and the metabolism (von Bahr et al, 1982) of the two enantiomers have been studied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stereoselective binding of propranolol enantiomers to human alpha 1‐ acid glycoprotein and human plasma.

Albani¹,

Riva²,

Contin³

et al. 1984

The binding of propranolol enantiomers to human albumin (ALB), al-acid glycoprotein (aI-AGP) and plasma was studied. (-) propranolol is more bound than (+) propranolol to a1-AGP (P < 0.001) and to plasma (P < 0.05). In solutions containing ALB at a constant concentration (580 ,umol/l) and a1-AGP at increasing concentrations, the binding of both isomers increases but the stereo selectivity is evident throughout the a1-AGP concentration range examined (25-100 ,umol/l).