10 Pharmacodynamics and Tolerability of Intranasally Administered Immediate-Release Amphetamine Sulfate Among Recreational Intranasal StimulantUsers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Study Objective Despite increased nonmedical use of ADHD prescription stimulants, there are limited data to inform selection of intranasal doses for abuse-potential evaluations. This study determined a dose of amphetamine sulfate that is tolerable and distinguishable from placebo on pharmacodynamic (PD) measures. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study, healthy, nondependent, recreational stimulant users received a single intranasal dose of amphetamine sulfate (20, 30, or 40mg ; n=6 per group) or placebo (n=2 per group). PD and safety were assessed pre-dose and ≤24hours post-dose. Drug Liking was measured using a bipolar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0–100). Dose selection criteria were complete dose insufflation (≥95%); demonstration of peak Drug Liking ≥75 points, and ≥15 points greater than placebo in ≥3 participants receiving active drug; and tolerability. Results Peak Drug Liking criteria were met in the 20-, 30-, and 40-mg groups by 2, 0, and 6 participants, respectively. Mean (SD) peak Drug Liking was 62 (13.0), 71 (17.8), and 93 (8.7) for amphetamine sulfate versus 54 (3.5), 76 (34.6), and 51 (0) for placebo in the 20-, 30-, and 40-mg groups, respectively. Thirteen participants experienced mild AEs (n=1, 4, 6, and 1 in 20-, 30-, 40-mg, and placebo groups, respectively), there were no serious or clinically significant AEs. The most common AE was nostril burning sensation (active drug, n=7). There were no instances of an incompletely insufflateddose. Conclusion A 40-mg intranasal dose produced distinguishable PD effects and was well tolerated. This dose has been selected for further abuse-potential evaluations. Funding Acknowledgements: This study was funded by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".