Why the study?
Does intravenous versus smoked methamphetamine produce different cardiovascular and subjective effects in methamphetamine-dependent individuals?
Does intravenous versus smoked methamphetamine produce different cardiovascular and subjective effects in methamphetamine-dependent individuals?
Intravenous and smoked methamphetamine produce differential cardiovascular and subjective effects, with intravenous administration trending towards greater cardiovascular stimulation.
Alerts clinicians to potential route-specific risks in methamphetamine users; leaves open confirmation of differential effects in larger trials.
Previous research has demonstrated that intravenous (IV) and smoked cocaine administration produced similar increases in heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP), whereas comparable doses of smoked cocaine resulted in higher subjective ratings of stimulated and high. To our knowledge, there have not been any studies conducted directly comparing the subjective and cardiovascular responses produced by IV methamphetamine (METH) versus smoked METH. Thirteen non‐treatment seeking METH‐dependent individuals, participated in separate protocols in which they were administered IV METH and smoked METH. In the first study, participants were administered METH (0 and 30 mg, IV) and subjective effects, as well as cardiovascular effects, were assessed prior to and 5, 15, 30, 45, and 60 min after METH administration. In the second study, smoked METH (0 and 30 mg) was administered and subjective and cardiovascular effects were obtained on the same time course as above. While not reaching statistical significance, METH administered via the IV route resulted in higher BP and HR across the time course assessed. Interestingly, subjective reports of desire METH and likely to use METH was higher when the route of administration was smoked. These findings demonstrate that the administration of IV versus smoked METH have differential cardiovascular and subjective effects in METH‐dependent participants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahoney et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: