Abuse liability of intra-nasal midazolam in inhaled-cocaine abusers

Author(s)

Braun, Ivan Mario ^[1] ; Tavares, Hermano ^[2] ; de Nucci, Gilberto ^[3] ; Bernik, Marcio ^[1]

Affiliation

^[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Anxiety Disorders Program, Inst & Dept Psychiat, BR-05508 Sao Paulo - Brazil

^[2] Univ Sao Paulo, Impulse Control Disorders Program, Inst & Dept Psychiat, BR-05508 Sao Paulo - Brazil

^[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Pharmacol, Inst Biomed Sci, BR-05508 Sao Paulo - Brazil

• Document type: Journal article
• Source: European Neuropsychopharmacology; v. 18, n. 10, p. 723-728, OCT 2008.
• Web of Science Citations: 0

Abstract

Intra-nasally instilled benzodiazepines have been proposed for acute anxiety episodes. However, routes with faster absorption may increase abuse liability. This study compared abuse liability of intra-nasal midazolam between subjects with a history of intra-nasal drug abuse and non-psychiatric subjects on a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Thirty-one inhaled-cocaine abusers and 34 normal volunteers received either 1 mg intra-nasal midazolam or active placebo. Visual analogue scales assessing desire to repeat the experience (ER) and Experience Liking (EL) assessed abuse liability. Profile analysis for repeated measures showed a significant effect of time over ER (F-{[}5,F-57]=3.311, p=0.011) and EL (F-{[}5,F-57]=3.947, p=0.004), diagnostic group (cocaine abusers scoring higher on both - F-{[}5,F-57]=5.229, p=0.026; F-{[}5,F-57]=4.946, p=0.030), regardless of the administered substance. It is concluded that the intra-nasal route does not seem to pose risks for non-psychiatric individuals, but it may represent a risk in itself for subjects with a history of drug abuse through this path. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved. (AU)