Ethanol effects on self-administration of alfentanil, cocaine, and nomifensine in rhesus monkeys.

A common form of polydrug use is that of cocaine and ethanol. The identification of an ethanol-cocaine combination product, cocaethylene, with properties in common with cocaine, has led to speculation that this metabolite may contribute to the co-abuse of cocaine and ethanol. In order to determine whether ethanol pretreatments selectively altered cocaine's reinforcing potency, ethanol pretreatments were given to monkeys trained to press levers and receive IV infusions of several doses of cocaine or alfentanil. In addition, nomifensine, a drug which has a mechanism of action similar to cocaine's, was evaluated in the presence and absence of ethanol in monkeys with the cocaine baseline history. Ethanol, in doses ranging from 100 to 1780 mg/kg, given 10 min before the 130-min session, had no effect on responding maintained by alfentanil. These doses also had no significant effect on cocaine-maintained responding, although the potency of cocaine as a reinforcer was increased following administration of 1000 mg/kg ethanol in two of the four subjects. The potency of nomifensine as a reinforcer was significantly increased by 1000 mg/kg ethanol, but again, this enhancement was limited to the same two subjects. These data indicate that, in this paradigm, cocaethylene did not selectively modify cocaine's reinforcing potency, but there appear to be individual differences with respect to ethanol's ability to stimulate rates of drug-maintained responding.

The effect on human salivary flow rate of the temperature of a gustatory stimulus.

In the first study, whole saliva was collected from ten adults during stimulation with sour, carbonated, sweet and water stimuli in the form of 5-ml of ice at about -10 degrees C or of liquids at 0, 8, 20 or 37 degrees C. Parotid saliva was also collected in response to ice or infusion into the mouth of the liquids at different temperatures. Another group of ten adults also collected whole saliva in response to water at 20 degrees C, with or without the presence in the mouth of an acrylic cube of dimensions similar to those of the ice. In a second study, 20 adults collected whole saliva in response to stimulation with 5 ml of water and of an astringent stimulus at 0, 8, 37 and 70 degrees C. In the first study, flow rates fell in the order sour, carbonated, sweet and water and flow rates in response to stimuli in the form of ice were very significantly higher than in response to the corresponding liquids at the four different temperatures. With the sour stimulus, liquids at 0 and 8 degrees C elicited higher flow rates than liquids at 20 or 37 degrees C. Although the presence in the mouth of the acrylic block increased the flow rate of whole saliva, the increase was only about 30% of that achieved with ice. In the second study, the astringent stimulus was a more effective salivary stimulus than water; flow rates were significantly higher in response to liquids at 0 and 8 degrees C than at the higher temperatures and flow rates in response to liquids at 37 degrees C were significantly lower than with the other temperatures. In summary, stimuli in the form of ice were the most effective and liquids at 37 degrees C were least effective in stimulating salivary flow.