A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to evaluate the human abuse liability of solriamfetol, a selective dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated the human abuse potential of solriamfetol (formerly JZP-110), a selective dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with robust wake-promoting effects. Methods: Adults with a recent history of recreational polydrug use, including stimulants, and who met criteria in a Qualification Phase were randomized to one of six sequences in a Test Phase. Each Test Phase sequence included a single administration of placebo, solriamfetol (300, 600, and 1200 mg), and phentermine (45 and 90 mg), with a two-day washout between periods. The primary endpoint was peak rating ( E max ) of Liking at the Moment across the first 12 h on a liking/disliking visual analog scale; key secondary endpoints were Next Day Overall Drug Liking, how much the participant would like to Take the Drug Again, and positive and negative subjective effects. Safety was also assessed throughout the study. Results: Of 43 participants (74.4% male; mean age 29.3 years), 37 completed the study. Peak E max Liking at the Moment for all solriamfetol doses was significantly greater than placebo and significantly less than phentermine 90 mg ( p < 0.05). Overall Next Day Drug Liking was greater than placebo for solriamfetol 300 mg and phentermine 45 and 90 mg ( p < 0.05). Willingness to Take the Drug Again was significantly greater than placebo and significantly less than both doses of phentermine for all doses of solriamfetol ( p < 0.05). Ratings of negative subjective effects (bad effects, disliking, anxiety, agitation) were higher with solriamfetol 600 and 1200 mg relative to phentermine. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with solriamfetol were hypervigilance, elevated mood, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis, and insomnia. Conclusion: Solriamfetol appears to have abuse potential similar to or lower than phentermine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".