Abstract
The number of individuals affected by psychostimulant use disorder (PSUD) has increased rapidly over the last few decades resulting in economic, emotional, and physical burdens on our society. Further compounding this issue is the current lack of clinically approved medications to treat this disorder. The dopamine transporter (DAT) is a common target of psychostimulant actions related to their use and dependence, and the recent availability of atypical DAT inhibitors as a potential therapeutic option has garnered popularity in this research field. Modafinil (MOD), which is approved for clinical use for the treatment of narcolepsy and sleep disorders, blocks DAT just like commonly abused psychostimulants. However, preclinical and clinical studies have shown that it lacks the addictive properties (in both behavioral and neurochemical studies) associated with other abused DAT inhibitors. Clinical availability of MOD has facilitated its off-label use for several psychiatric disorders related to alteration of brain dopamine (DA) systems, including PSUD. In this review, we highlight clinical and preclinical research on MOD and its R-enantiomer, R-MOD, as potential medications for PSUD. Given the complexity of PSUD, we have also reported the effects of MOD on psychostimulant-induced appearance of several symptoms that could intensify the severity of the disease (i.e., sleep disorders and impairment of cognitive functions), besides the potential therapeutic effects of MOD on PSUD.
Keywords: cocaine, modafinil, dopamine, dopamine transporter blocker, psychostimulant use disorder, drug abuse and dependence, drug addiction
Introduction
Psychostimulant use disorder is a complex disease defined by DSM-5 which includes both former (DSM-IV) diagnoses of abuse and dependence on a psychostimulant, such as cocaine or amphetamines. While illicit drugs have long been a societal concern, drug use rates have been growing in recent years. Globally, stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines are used by approximately 0.35–0.4% and 0.7–0.77% of the population, respectively (Peacock et al., 2018; Farrell et al., 2019). Of these subpopulations, 16% are dependent on cocaine, while 11% are dependent on amphetamines (Farrell et al., 2019). In the United States, it was estimated that about 5.5 million people age 12 and older used cocaine in 2018 (2% of the United States population) (SAMHSA, 2018) and 1.9 million people age 12 and older used METH in 2018 (0.7% of the United States population) (SAMHSA, 2018). A major issue with substance use disorders is the risk of overdose. Recent data show that between 2012 and 2018, drug overdoses involving cocaine more than tripled, and drug overdoses involving abused psychostimulants increased nearly five-fold (Hedegaard et al., 2020).
Classically, the neurobiology underlying PSUD has focused on the neurotransmitter dopamine (DA) for its role in reward processing (Wise and Rompre, 1989; Wise, 2008; Arias-Carrión et al., 2010; Taber et al., 2012). Indeed, commonly abused stimulants exert effects on brain DA levels through their interactions with the neuronal membrane DAT (Das, 1993; Nestler, 2005). Increased DA levels after psychostimulant administration lead to arousal and euphoria, which facilitate the transition from the initial recreational use to continued excessive use, and parallel the potential clinical development of addiction in patients with the most severe form of the disorder (Compton et al., 2018).
The clinical severity of PSUD can be often worsened by medical and mental health comorbidities, e.g., mood and sleep disorders (Mahfoud et al., 2009; Gould, 2010; Torrens and Rossi, 2015). Furthermore, PSUD may be associated with cognitive impairment, which in turn lead to higher treatment dropout rates (Sofuoglu et al., 2013, 2016; Nuijten et al., 2016). These indicate a potential treatment avenue to ameliorate some of the effects of PSUD, which may contribute to increased abstinence rates overall.
Treatment of PSUD relies primarily on behavioral remedies, which may include 12-step facilitation, contingency management, relapse prevention, motivational enhancement therapy, and CBT (for a review, see: Vocci and Montoya, 2009). However, these approaches are time- and resource-intensive and their effect sizes are sub-optimal: integration with effective pharmacotherapies would be likely to improve outcomes and success rates. However, to date there are no approved pharmacologic treatments for PSUD (Phillips et al., 2014). Medications such as antidepressants, DA agonists/partial agonists, mood stabilizers, neuro-protectives, and agonist-like replacement therapy (de Lima et al., 2003; Elkashef et al., 2005; Diana, 2011; Phillips et al., 2014; Jordan et al., 2019) have all been tested with minimal success. The lack of pharmacological treatments for PSUD is a driving force for research toward the development of novel medications.
Among the potential pharmacotherapeutic options for PSUD is MOD, a clinically available medication that inhibits the uptake of DA by blocking DAT (Mignot et al., 1994; Loland et al., 2012). This pharmacological effect is shared with abused psychostimulants but, in spite of that, MOD shows behavioral and neurochemical actions that suggest limited, if any, potential for misuse (Jasinski, 2000; Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2002; Myrick et al., 2004; Food and Drug Administration, 2007; Vosburg et al., 2010; Mereu et al., 2020). Currently, this agent is prescribed for its wake-promoting effects (Czeisler et al., 2005; Kumar, 2008), consistent with its approval for narcolepsy, shift work sleep disorder, and obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome. Off-label, MOD has been used for its pro-cognitive effects, especially in patients with cognitive impairment associated with psychiatric disorders (Peñaloza et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2014). During the last two decades, MOD has been tested as a potential medication to treat some of the primary (dependence) and secondary (cognitive and sleep disorders) symptoms of PSUD, representing a potential additional treatment option for selected populations affected by PSUD.
In this review, we will mainly focus on preclinical studies showing how MOD and R-MOD (its R-enantiomer) interact with DAT, the DAergic system, and the reinforcing actions of abused psychostimulants. We will also review clinical studies where MOD efficacy as a potential treatment for PSUD has been evaluated, including for related symptoms such as alteration of sleep and cognitive dysfunction.
Modafinil Pharmacology Related to PSUD
Modafinil [2-(Diphenylmethyl) sulfinyl acetamide; Alertec, Modavigil, Provigil] and its long-acting, enantiopure form, R-MOD (Nuvigil, Artvigil) (Wong et al., 1999), are clinically available and prescribed as wake-promoting agents for narcolepsy and sleep disorders (Bastoji and Jouvet, 1988; Broughton et al., 1997; US Modafinil in Narcolepsy Multicenter Study Group, 1998, 2000). Early evidence suggested that MOD had a weak, low μM affinity, but relatively good selectivity, for DAT (Mignot et al., 1994), confirmed by more recent studies (Madras et al., 2006; Loland et al., 2012). Thus, the main mechanism of action for MOD appears predominantly driven by actions at neural membrane DATs to stimulate catecholamine neurotransmission (Wisor et al., 2001; Madras et al., 2006). DAT knockout mice were used to confirm the importance of DAT in the mechanism of action of MOD, as studies have found that the pharmacological wake-promoting effects of MOD administration were abolished in those mutant mice (Wisor et al., 2001). Volkow et al. (2009) used PET to show that, after oral administration, MOD (200 to 400 mg) occupies and blocks DAT in the human brain (caudate, NAcc, and putamen). The latter effect was also shown for the enantiomer, R-MOD (Spencer et al., 2010). Further, as a result of the DAT inhibition induced by administration of MOD or R-MOD, increased brain DA levels can be observed in several dopaminergic nerve terminal regions (Ferraro et al., 1996c; Wisor et al., 2001; Volkow et al., 2009; Loland et al., 2012). Further, DAT trafficking could be affected by psychostimulants. Administration of DAT substrates like METH and amphetamine decreases the trafficking of DAT to the cell surface (Saunders et al., 2000; Zahniser and Sorkin, 2009), while DAT inhibitors like cocaine have been shown to increase DAT trafficking to the cell surface (Daws et al., 2002; Little et al., 2002; Zahniser and Sorkin, 2009). Although the effects of MOD administration on DAT trafficking have yet to be fully elucidated, it has been shown that MOD prevents METH-induced decreases in DAT immunoreactivity 6 days after treatment (Raineri et al., 2012).
Beyond DAT, MOD does not show significant affinity for other important pharmacological brain targets. For example, MOD affinity for the NET falls in the 100 μM range (Madras et al., 2006), and it is still unclear if the increases in brain NE levels induced by MOD are the result of its interaction with NET (see for review Mereu et al., 2013). These effects on brain NE levels in PFC and rostro-medial hypothalamus (de Saint Hilaire et al., 2001) could be of interest due to a well-documented role for NE in wakefulness and arousal (reviewed in Mitchell and Weinshenker, 2010). Interestingly, MOD did not show direct activity on trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) (Madras et al., 2006), in contrast to amphetamines (Xie and Miller, 2009; Liu et al., 2020). MOD has been shown to have indirect actions on TAAR1 through activation of DAT, which can augment TAAR1 activation (Madras et al., 2006). TAAR1 has been implicated in wakefulness, which represents a predictable effect given the receptor’s ability to modulate the activity of other monoamine systems (Revel et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2020). In a recent report, deletion of TAAR1 receptor in mice did not produce substantial effects on MOD-induced wakefulness as compared to WT mice (Schwartz et al., 2018). In the same report, reductions in MOD-induced gamma-band activity in EEG studies in TAAR1 KO mice were found, and the authors suggest that TAAR1 may regulate neurophysiological factors related cortical and cognitive functions (Schwartz et al., 2018).
Regardless of its affinity for pharmacological targets, MOD has been reported to affect the levels of several neurotransmitters. MOD stimulates brain glutamate levels in the hypothalamus (medial preoptic area and posterior hypothalamus), thalamus (ventromedial and ventrolateral regions), and hippocampus (Ferraro et al., 1997b, 1999), and it has been shown to decrease the levels of GABA in the NAcc, hypothalamus (medial preoptic area and posterior hypothalamus), striatal, and pallidal regions (Ferraro et al., 1996b, 1997a, 1999). MOD induced stimulation in brain serotonin levels in the PFC (Ferraro et al., 2000; de Saint Hilaire et al., 2001), increases in histamine levels and/or activation in the tuberomammillary nucleus and the anterior hypothalamus (Scammell et al., 2000; Ishizuka et al., 2003, 2008), and limited activation of orexin/hypocretin neurons in the perifornical areas and lateral hypothalamus (Chemelli et al., 1999; Scammell et al., 2000; Willie et al., 2005) has also been observed (reviewed in Kumar, 2008; Minzenberg and Carter, 2008; Mereu et al., 2013).
In addition to its effects on neurotransmitter levels, MOD administration affects the induction and inhibition of hepatic cytochrome P450 isoenzymes (Robertson et al., 2000). In vitro, MOD competitively inhibits CYP2C19 and suppresses CYP2C9, as well as moderately induces CYP1A2, CYP3A4, and CYP2B6 (Robertson et al., 2000). Pharmacokinetic studies in vivo with warfarin and ethinylestradiol, which react with CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 respectively, have not shown the same magnitude of effect as in vitro studies (Robertson and Hellriegel, 2003). Through MOD’s induction and inhibition of the P450 isoenzymes, MOD co-administration may decrease or prolong plasma concentrations of other drugs metabolized through these enzymes (Schwartz, 2005). There have been clinical reports of MOD interactions with medications, for example, cyclosporine and clomipramine. Specifically, the immunosuppressive effect of cyclosporine decreased after 200 mg/day MOD, which appeared to be from CYP3A4 induction (for a review, see e.g., Robertson and Hellriegel, 2003). A patient treated with clomipramine was found to lack functional CYP2D6, and the ancillary CYP2C19 pathways inhibited by MOD contributed to increased clomipramine levels in the blood (Robertson and Hellriegel, 2003). MOD also has notable effects as a facilitator of electrotonic coupling in neurons and astroglia through actions at gap junctions (Garcia-Rill et al., 2007; Urbano et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2013; Duchêne et al., 2016; Mereu et al., 2020). In particular, it has been shown that the gap junction inhibitor carbenoxolone blunted the ability of MOD to potentiate self-administration of cocaine in rats (Mereu et al., 2020). These properties are likely important for the agent’s pharmacological actions, as well as interactions with other drugs and biomolecules.
Modafinil, DAT Inhibition, and Potential Abuse Liability
As a result of inhibition of DAT, it is not surprising that MOD activities could overlap with some of those observed after administration of commonly abused psychostimulants. However, as reported in Table 1, some of its actions seem directed to improve specific symptoms observed in patients with a PSUD diagnosis, i.e., impairments in cognition, sleep, cardiovascular function, and mood disturbances, as well as elevated neuroinflammation. Moreover, MOD fails to display the abuse potential (Jasinski, 2000; Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2002; Myrick et al., 2004; Food and Drug Administration, 2007; Vosburg et al., 2010) or the withdrawal symptoms (Hermant et al., 1991; Myrick et al., 2004) observed with typical psychostimulants. Indeed, to our knowledge, only a very few anecdotical reports of MOD abuse and dependence have been reported in the literature (Kate et al., 2012; Ozturk and Deveci, 2014; Krishnan and Chary, 2015) despite the climbing rates of its non-medical use as a cognitive enhancer in schools and at the workplace (Sharif et al., 2021). Further, important behavioral and neurochemical differences between MOD, or R-MOD, and typical abused psychostimulants have been found in preclinical studies, suggesting they have a unique pharmacological, psychostimulant profile. Taken together, these actions highlight the potential for MOD to reduce the harm associated with the complexity of the symptoms in PSUD. In the next sections, we will briefly highlight some of the pharmacological actions of MOD, i.e., increased wakefulness, improved cognition and cardiovascular function, that could play a potential role in its therapeutic activity against PSUD (summarized in Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Symptoms related to PSUD and potential therapeutic actions of MOD.
METH = methamphetamine; DEA = Drug Enforcement Agency; PSUD = psychostimulant use disorder; MOD = modafinil.
Modafinil Interactions With Sleep and Wakefulness Activities
Modafinil was introduced as a wake-promoting agent in the 1990s and approved by the US FDA to treat excessive sleeping (narcolepsy, shift work sleep disorder, obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome) (Bastoji and Jouvet, 1988; Broughton et al., 1997; US Modafinil in Narcolepsy Multicenter Study Group, 1998, 2000). In addition to its approved uses, MOD is often used off-label for the treatment of fatigue symptoms in neurological, psychiatric, and excessive fatigue disorders (reviewed in Kumar, 2008). Like amphetamines, the molecular mechanism by which MOD imposes wakefulness has been largely debated. The mechanism is suspected to be linked to the inhibition of monoamine transport by plasma membrane transporters like DAT. In particular, studies have shown that DAT and DA regulation in key areas involved in wakefulness/sleep (i.e., medial preoptic area and posterior hypothalamus) is crucial in the wake-promoting effects of amphetamines and MOD (Jones et al., 1977; Nishino and Mignot, 1997; Nishino et al., 1998; Wisor et al., 2001). Further, researchers have shown that DA activity fluctuates with arousal state (Trulson, 1985). MOD’s effects on other neurotransmitters are also suspected to play a role in the wakefulness-promoting properties of this agent (Boutrel and Koob, 2004). For example, changes in brain NE neurotransmission have been suggested to play a role in wakefulness and arousal (reviewed in Mitchell and Weinshenker, 2010), and MOD stimulation of brain NE levels in PFC and rostro-medial hypothalamus (de Saint Hilaire et al., 2001) could be related to its effect on sleep disturbances. While it is still unclear if NET blockade is the mechanism of action related to MOD stimulation of brain NE levels, some studies have suggested that NET inhibition is less efficacious in the promotion of wakefulness than DAT inhibition (Nishino and Mignot, 1997; Nishino et al., 1998). It is of interest to note that MOD, as highlighted above, interacts with other key neurotransmitters and systems that could play a role in the regulation of sleep, including glutamate, GABA, serotonin, histamine, and orexin/hypocretin (reviewed in Monti, 2013). There is also evidence that MOD increases glutamine synthetase in the rat brain, an enzyme that converts glutamate to glutamine for storage, which may be important for the wakefulness effects of MOD (Touret et al., 1994). The orexin system has a well-established role in sleep-wake regulation (Espana et al., 2001; Sakurai, 2007). MOD administration increases the expression of c-Fos (a marker of neuronal activation) in orexin neurons in the hypothalamus (Chemelli et al., 1999; Scammell et al., 2000). Orexin neuronal projections can activate histamine release in the hypothalamus as well (Huang et al., 2001; Ishizuka et al., 2002). Histamine also has a well-documented role in regulating sleep-wake cycle (Haas et al., 2008). Interestingly, MOD administration produced activation of histaminergic cells (Scammell et al., 2000) but only in the presence of an intact orexin system (Ishizuka et al., 2010). Further, decreases in histamine or loss of histamine neurons blunted MOD-induced increases in locomotion (Ishizuka et al., 2008) as well as the drug’s wake-promoting actions (Yu et al., 2019). On the other hand, orexin-null mice displayed heightened wakefulness following MOD administration compared to wild-type mice (Willie et al., 2005). These findings suggest impaired regulation of the arousal system following removal of orexin, but they also suggest that orexin is not necessarily required for MOD’s wake-promoting actions, or that in those mice possible neuronal adaptations would substitute for removal of orexin.
Modafinil Interactions With Cognitive Functions
Enhancements in cognitive functions have been reported following MOD administration in rodents and humans (Turner et al., 2003; Minzenberg and Carter, 2008; Cope et al., 2017). MOD produces dose-dependent improvements in working memory (Béracochéa et al., 2001; Ward et al., 2004; Piérard et al., 2006), speed of learning (Béracochéa et al., 2002, 2003; Ward et al., 2004), and sustained attention (Morgan et al., 2007) in animals. In humans, MOD produces similar effects, improving memory and attention (reviewed in Minzenberg and Carter, 2008). Importantly, MOD heightens attention independently of its effects on wakefulness/arousal (Cope et al., 2017). MOD administration elicits changes in activation of brain regions associated with cognition, including the hippocampus (Ferraro et al., 1997b; Shuman et al., 2009; Brandt et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2015) and the PFC (Müller et al., 2004; González et al., 2014, 2018). Thus, improvements in cognitive functions associated with MOD’s actions on the dopaminergic system may underlie those specific changes in DA transmission (reviewed in Minzenberg and Carter, 2008; Mereu et al., 2013), for example in the PFC, that have been recognized for their role in working memory (Sawaguchi and Goldman-Rakic, 1991, 1994). Further, DA receptors can be found on glutamatergic pyramidal cells (Tseng and O’Donnell, 2004) and GABAergic neurons (Tseng and O’Donnell, 2007) in the PFC where they can gate glutamatergic and GABAergic transmission linked to cognition (reviewed in Minzenberg and Carter, 2008). MOD’s effects on brain NE may also affect cognition due to NE’s established role in modulation of cognitive function (reviewed in Chamberlain and Robbins, 2013). Stimulation of NE neurotransmission following MOD administration is also implicated in cognition (Minzenberg and Carter, 2008), while MOD actions on the acetylcholine system have been shown to have effects on learning and memory (reviewed in Mereu et al., 2013). It has also been shown that MOD produced increased motivation, likely by activating D1 receptors (Young and Geyer, 2010). Importantly, MOD is an appealing candidate to target cognitive dysfunction associated with ADHD and psychiatric disorders (Ballon and Feifel, 2006), as well as PSUD. Specifically, treatment with MOD has been shown to improve cognition in PSUD patients (Dean et al., 2011) (see also the “Human studies” sections below).
The pro-cognitive effects of MOD have stimulated a debate about an ethical dilemma and potential concern regarding its rapidly increasing off-label, non-medical use in healthy individuals to improve attention, focus, memory, and cognitive functions (Cakic, 2009; Sahakian and Morein-Zamir, 2011; Peñaloza et al., 2013).
Modafinil/DAT Inhibition and Inflammation
Additional potential actions of MOD include the ability to act as an anti-inflammatory agent. Specifically, MOD has been shown to reduce neuroinflammation via suppressing inflammatory cytokines (Han et al., 2018), T-cell differentiation (Brandao et al., 2019), monocyte recruitment/activation (Zager et al., 2018), and activation of glial cells (Raineri et al., 2012). This MOD-induced immune activation may be essential for decreasing the neurotoxic and inflammatory consequences of many diseases including PSUD, an exceptionally important effect given that many stimulants are pro-inflammatory in nature. METH administration is marked by increases in TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6 expression, as well as elevated microglial activation (Cadet et al., 1994; Lai et al., 2009; Gonçalves et al., 2010). Cocaine has similarly been associated with increases in TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, activator protein 1 (AP-1), and nuclear factor kappa B (NFκB) (Zhang et al., 1998; Gan et al., 1999; Lee et al., 2001; Dhillon et al., 2008). Nicotine is marked by increases in TNF-α, IL-18, IL-1β, and chemokines, including CCL2, CCL8, and CXC3CL1 (Bradford et al., 2011). Pro-inflammatory agents, such as stimulants, have also been associated with deterioration of the natural obstacle that protects the brain; the blood brain barrier, further magnifying their neurotoxic effects (Czub et al., 2001; Nath et al., 2002). MOD has been shown to counteract the toxic and neuroinflammatory effects of METH in mice (Raineri et al., 2012), but effects against other drugs of abuse have yet to be reported.
Modafinil administration has also been shown to exert effects on histamine, a common marker of inflammation and neurotransmitter involved in sleep/wakefulness (Haas et al., 2008). Using in vivo microdialysis, an increased histamine release in the anterior hypothalamus was observed following MOD administration (Ishizuka et al., 2003).
Preclinical Studies on MOD as a Pharmacotherapeutic Treatment for PSUD
Neurochemical Studies
In this section, we will review the neurochemistry of MOD as it relates to PSUD. The main pharmacologic activity of MOD is due to its affinity and inhibitory actions at DAT, which result in stimulation of brain extracellular DA levels. DAT and the DA system also play a major role in the abuse liability of psychostimulants. Thus, we will start this section with a brief background about DAT and DA roles in PSUD.
DA and DAT, Their Role in Drug Abuse, Dependence, and as Potential Targets for Pharmacotherapy of PSUD
Dopamine’s role in the brain’s reward circuit has been extensively studied (Wise and Rompre, 1989; Di Chiara et al., 1993a, 1998; Wise, 2008; Arias-Carrión et al., 2010; Taber et al., 2012), however its role in drug abuse and dependence is still not fully clarified (Volkow et al., 2011; Wise and Robble, 2020). Following acute administration of drugs of abuse, including central stimulants and depressants, opiates, cannabinoids, and cholinergic agonists, increased levels of extracellular DA have been reported in the brain regions that are the projection fields of dopaminergic neurons, specifically the NAcc and caudate (Di Chiara and Imperato, 1988; Koob, 1992; Pontieri et al., 1995, 1996; Tanda et al., 1997a; Di Chiara et al., 1999). Acute administration of psychostimulants, in particular, has been shown to increase DA levels in a dose dependent manner in the NAcc shell and core, and in the striatum (Di Chiara et al., 1993b; Pontieri et al., 1995; Tanda et al., 1997b). These effects are likely related to the initial positive experience of drug use that could also lead to acquisition of drug-seeking behaviors and to the desire to repeat behaviors that lead to a pleasurable experience (Pettit and Justice, 1989; Woolverton and Johnson, 1992; Koob et al., 1998), but do not account for all neurological aspects of substance use disorder (Salamone et al., 2003; Robinson and Kolb, 2004; Russo et al., 2009; Golden and Russo, 2012). Repeated drug use has been shown to cause synaptic changes, allowing for the development of a different regulation of neurotransmission and other neuronal activities, which is believed to be the driving force behind drug addiction (Thomas et al., 2008; Luscher and Malenka, 2011). Indeed, addictive drugs consistently elicit neurological changes that are indicative of potential targets for better understanding and treating the development of specific patterns of drug use and dependence.
Regulation of expression and trafficking of presynaptic DATs by synaptic DA levels has been proposed as a pharmacological target involved in the development of PSUD (Zahniser and Sorkin, 2004). Indeed, both acute and chronic cocaine exposure increases DAT density in the NAcc and DS (Zahniser and Sorkin, 2004), while other psychostimulants such as amphetamine and METH decrease DAT expression in the same regions (Saunders et al., 2000; Sandoval et al., 2001; Barr et al., 2006; Kahlig et al., 2006). Despite varying levels of transporter presence, a primary result of psychostimulant use is an increase in synaptic DA levels by inhibiting its presynaptic neuronal reuptake or by interacting with the VMAT2, releasing DA into the cytoplasm and then releasing DA into the synapse by reversing its transport direction through DAT (Sulzer et al., 2005; Xie and Miller, 2009; Calipari et al., 2013). The regulation of DAT expression allows the formation of a feedback loop between DAT abundance and psychostimulant presence in the brain (Verma, 2015). The resulting changes in DAT density after drug use perpetuates a need for consistent amounts of the drug to avoid withdrawal and to maintain significant levels of DA and DAT expression.
DA and DAT as Potential Pharmacologic Target for the Therapeutic Actions of MOD Against PSUD
The use of MOD as a therapeutic agent for PSUD is largely based on its mechanistic actions that, in part, overlap with those of other abused psychostimulants. For instance, abused psychostimulants increase mesolimbic extracellular DA, often by interacting with DAT (Mortensen and Amara, 2003; Zhu and Reith, 2008), and MOD has been shown to stimulate DA levels in the same dopaminergic areas related to psychostimulant actions (Ferraro et al., 1996c; Zolkowska et al., 2009; Loland et al., 2012; Rowley et al., 2014; Bobak et al., 2016; Mereu et al., 2020). Even though the pharmacological actions of MOD have been mainly explained by its affinity for DAT, its unique psychostimulant profile has been shown to differ from that of typical DAT inhibitors, as shown in behavioral, neurochemical and molecular pharmacology studies (Schmitt and Reith, 2011; Loland et al., 2012; Mereu et al., 2013, 2017, 2020). For example, MOD binding to DAT differs from that of other typical, cocaine-like, DAT blockers (Schmitt and Reith, 2011). In contrast to cocaine, MOD prefers to bind to, or stabilize the DAT protein in a more inward-facing occluded conformation (Schmitt and Reith, 2011; Loland et al., 2012) that still inhibits uptake and results in increases in extracellular DA in the NAcc (Ferraro et al., 1996c; Zolkowska et al., 2009), the NAcc shell (NAS) (Loland et al., 2012; Mereu et al., 2020), and the striatum (Rowley et al., 2014). MOD also increases electrically evoked DA in the DS and VS (Bobak et al., 2016) (summarized in Table 2) like abused psychostimulants (Nisell et al., 1994; Pontieri et al., 1996; Munzar et al., 2004; Kohut et al., 2014). However, while acute administration of MOD (Mereu et al., 2017, 2020) or its enantiomers (Loland et al., 2012; Keighron et al., 2019a, b) increases extracellular NAcc DA levels in rodents, these effects, even at very high doses, elicited a limited stimulation of DA in striatal areas compared to the stimulation elicited by abused psychostimulants (Loland et al., 2012; Mereu et al., 2017, 2020). This limited efficacy of MOD to increase DA levels, as compared to abused psychostimulants, also predicts a limited potential for abuse.
TABLE 2.
Neurochemical actions of MOD.
| Agent(s) | Dose(s), species | Effect of MOD | References |
| MOD | 3–300 mg/kg, s.c. RAT | - ↑ Extracellular NAcc DA levels | Ferraro et al. (1996c) |
| 20–60 mg/kg, i.v. | -↑ Extracellular DA in the NAcc | Zolkowska et al. (2009) | |
| RAT | - ↓ METH-induced stimulation of NAcc DA levels | ||
| 10–56 mg/kg, i.v. RAT | - ↑ Extracellular NAS DA levels - NSE on cocaine-induced stimulation of NAS DA levels | Mereu et al. (2020) | |
| 10 μg/5 μL, i.c.v. RAT | -↑ Extracellular NAcc DA levels | Murillo-Rodríguez et al. (2007) | |
| 100–600 mg/kg, p.o. RAT | - ↑ Extracellular DA in the striatum and PFC | Rowley et al. (2014) | |
| 30–300 mg/kg, i.p. RAT | - ↑ Electrically evoked DA in the ventral and dorsal striatum | Bobak et al. (2016) | |
| R-MOD | 30–100 mg/kg, i.p. | - ↑ Extracellular DA in the NAcc | Wang et al. (2015) |
| RAT | - ↓ Nicotine-induced stimulation of NAcc DA levels | ||
| 30–300 mg/kg, i.p. MOUSE | - ↑ Extracellular NAS DA levels | Loland et al. (2012) | |
| 10–32 mg/kg, i.v. | - ↑ Extracellular NAS DA levels | Keighron et al. (2019a) | |
| MOUSE | - ↑ Electrically evoked NAS DA | ||
| - ↓ DA clearance rate | |||
| 5–100 mg/kg, i.p. | - ↑ Electrically evoked DA in the NAS | Keighron et al. (2019b) | |
| MOUSE | - ↓ DA clearance rate | ||
| S-MOD | 30–300 mg/kg, i.p. MOUSE | - ↑ Extracellular NAS DA levels | Loland et al. (2012); Mereu et al. (2020) |
NAcc, nucleus accumbens; NAS, nucleus accumbens shell; PFC, prefrontal cortex; METH, methamphetamine; i.p., intraperitoneal; i.v., intravenous; i.c.v, intracerebroventricular injection; s.c., subcutaneous; p.o., oral administration; NSE, not a significant effect; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease.
Cocaine psychostimulant actions and its abuse liability have been related to its ability to slow DA reuptake by inhibiting DAT and stimulating DA neurotransmission (Wise and Bozarth, 1987; Kuhar et al., 1991). It is interesting to note that administration of MOD (10–32 mg/kg, i.p.) prior to cocaine produced no further increase in extracellular NAS DA levels beyond that produced by cocaine alone (Mereu et al., 2020). This effect varied with the additive effects on DA levels obtained with combinations of cocaine and typical DAT blockers like methylphenidate or WIN 35,428 (Tanda et al., 2009; Mereu et al., 2020), but similar to the effects shown by combinations of cocaine and an atypical DAT blocker like JHW007 (Tanda et al., 2009), suggesting a potential atypical DAT inhibitor effect for MOD in these tests.
Another abused psychostimulant, METH, is transported into DA neurons and its nerve terminals as a DAT substrate, like DA, where it has also been shown to affect the VMAT2 function. As a consequence, decreased vesicular DA concentrations and increased cytoplasmic DA levels result, via reverse transport of DA through DAT (Kahlig and Galli, 2003; Sulzer et al., 2005; Howell and Kimmel, 2008), resulting in dramatic increases in extracellular DA levels and robust stimulation of behavioral activities (Munzar et al., 2004). When administered prior to METH, MOD significantly attenuated the stimulatory effects of METH on extracellular NAcc DA levels (see Table 2) (Zolkowska et al., 2009). This effect suggests the possibility that blockade of DAT by MOD pretreatment could affect the ability of METH to be transported by DAT as its substrate into the DA nerve terminal, thus reducing its ability to enhance extracellular DA levels. Reducing the dopaminergic effects of METH could play a role in the therapeutic effects shown by MOD in some preclinical behavioral reports and in clinical studies on METH dependent subjects.
Nicotine, the key addictive component in tobacco, exerts indirect actions on DAT. Voltammetry studies revealed that nicotine slows DA clearance (Hart and Ksir, 1996), in addition to nicotine’s actions in modulating dopaminergic transmission via activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on DA neurons (Clarke and Pert, 1985; Picciotto et al., 1998; Laviolette and Van Der Kooy, 2004). When administered prior to nicotine, MOD produced a reduction in nicotine-induced stimulation of extracellular NAcc DA levels (see Table 2) (Wang et al., 2015).
These preclinical actions of MOD as an atypical DAT inhibitor suggest a strong potential for its therapeutic use in PSUDs (see Table 2).
Modulation of Brain Glutamate Levels by MOD Plays a Role in Its Therapeutic Actions on PSUD
The excitatory neurotransmitter, glutamate, has long been associated with many brain physiological functions and brain diseases including addiction (Meldrum, 2000; Kalivas, 2009). Interestingly, the effects of MOD administration on glutamate levels varies by brain region (reviewed in Gerrard and Malcolm, 2007; Mereu et al., 2013). It is predicted that this could be due, in part, to corresponding activation/inactivation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter, GABA. MOD produced increases in glutamate in the medial preoptic areas (Ferraro et al., 1996b), posterior hypothalamus (Ferraro et al., 1996b), thalamus (Ferraro et al., 1997a), hippocampus (Ferraro et al., 1997a), and striatum (Ferraro et al., 1996a, 1998). It was only at high does (300 mg/kg MOD) that increases in glutamate were observed in the substantia nigra or the pallidum (Ferraro et al., 1998). MOD also shows agonist activity at some glutamate receptors (group II metabotropic; mGlu2/3) (Tahsili-Fahadan et al., 2010), although this is likely not due to direct receptor activation. Behaviorally, the impaired reinstatement of extinguished CPP for opiates following MOD administration was blunted with an mGlu2/3 antagonist pretreatment (Tahsili-Fahadan et al., 2010). Neurochemically, cystine-glutamate exchange or voltage dependent calcium channel antagonist administration blocked increases in glutamate in the NAcc following MOD, in rats chronically trained to self-administer cocaine (Mahler et al., 2014).
The effects of MOD on glutamate can be directly linked to many of the agent’s biological effects. For example, MOD-produced increases in synaptic plasticity and long-term potentiation of glutamatergic connections to orexin neurons in the lateral hypothalamus is linked to improved wakefulness and cognition (Rao et al., 2007), but it is also linked to drug reinforced behaviors (Boutrel et al., 2013).
Effects of MOD on Behavioral Models of PSUD
Herein, we will review animal preclinical data on behavioral tests, mainly in rodents, used to model specific aspects of human substance use disorders, especially PSUD. Importantly, we will compare results from reports analyzing the effects of psychostimulants alone, MOD alone, and MOD in combination with psychostimulants, as summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3.
MOD effects on preclinical behavioral animal models related to PSUD.
| Behavioral test | Agent(s), dose(s), species | Behavioral effect of MOD | References |
| Locomotion | MOD, 20–256 mg/kg, i.v. RAT | - ↑ Locomotion and stereotyped movements | Zolkowska et al. (2009) |
| MOD, 32–256 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - ↑ Locomotion and stereotyped movements | Chang et al. (2010) | |
| MOD, 50–75 mg/kg/day p.o. for 30 days RAT | - ↑ Locomotion | Alam and Choudhary (2018) | |
| MOD, 50–75 mg/kg/day p.o. for 30 days + haloperidol 1 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Haloperidol ↓ MOD induced locomotion | Alam and Choudhary (2018) | |
| MOD, 75–150 mg/kg p.o. MOUSE | - ↑ Locomotion and stereotyped movements | Paterson et al. (2010) | |
| MOD 16–80 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - ↑ Locomotion and stereotyped movements | Wuo-Silva et al. (2016, 2019) | |
| MOD 32–128 mg/k i.p. MOUSE | - ↑ Exploration | Young et al. (2011) | |
| MOD 64–300 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - ↑ Locomotion | Wuo-Silva et al. (2011) | |
| MOD 64 mg/kg i.p. + sulpiride 25–100 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Low dose sulpiride ↑ and high dose sulpiride ↓MOD induced locomotion | Wuo-Silva et al. (2019) | |
| MOD 0.75 and 75 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 15 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - NSE effect on locomotion - NSE on cocaine-induced locomotion | Shuman et al. (2012) | |
| R-MOD 10–30 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - ↑ Locomotion | Zhang et al. (2017) | |
| R-MOD 30–300 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - ↑ Time awake - Low dose ↑ locomotion | Wisor et al. (2006) | |
| MOD 20 mg/kg i.v. + METH 0.3 mg/kg i.v. RAT | - ↓ METH-induced locomotion | Zolkowska et al. (2009) | |
| MOD 3–10 mg/kg i.v. RHESUS MONKEY | - ↑ Nighttime locomotion | Andersen et al. (2010) | |
| Behavioral sensitization | MOD 32–256 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Induced behavioral sensitization | Chang et al. (2010) |
| MOD 16–64 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced behavioral sensitization | Wuo-Silva et al. (2016, 2019) | |
| MOD 64–300 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced behavioral sensitization | Wuo-Silva et al. (2011) | |
| MOD 64–300 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 15 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced bidirectional behavioral sensitization | Wuo-Silva et al. (2011) | |
| MOD 50 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced behavioral sensitization | da Costa Soeiro et al. (2012) | |
| MOD 75 mg/kg/day p.o. RAT | - Restraint ↑ MOD-induced locomotor sensitization | ||
| MOD 64 mg/kg i.p. + SCH23390 0.003 mg/kg i.p. or sulpiride 50 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - SCH23390 and sulpiride ↓ MOD-induced rapid-onset sensitization | Wuo-Silva et al. (2019) | |
| MOD 75 mg/kg p.o. MOUSE | - Did not induce locomotor sensitization | Paterson et al. (2010) | |
| MOD 75 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Did not induce locomotor sensitization | Shuman et al. (2012) | |
| MOD 64 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 20 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced bidirectional behavioral sensitization | Wuo-Silva et al. (2016) | |
| MOD 50 mg/kg i.p. + METH 1 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced cross-sensitization | da Costa Soeiro et al. (2012) | |
| MOD 75 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 15 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced cross-sensitization | Shuman et al. (2012) | |
| Conditioned place preference | MOD 32–300 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Did not induce CPP | Deroche-Gamonet et al. (2002); Tahsili-Fahadan et al. (2010) |
| MOD 64 mg/kg p.o. RAT | - Did not induce CPP | Quisenberry et al. (2013) | |
| MOD 125 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced CPP | Nguyen et al. (2011) | |
| MOD 64–300 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced CPP | Wuo-Silva et al. (2011) | |
| MOD 0.75 and 75 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 15 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - Induced CPP - NSE on cocaine induced CPP | Shuman et al. (2012) | |
| MOD 128 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 20 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Reinstated cocaine CPP | Bernardi et al. (2009) | |
| MOD 300 mg/kg i.p. + morphine 8–16 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Did not reinstate morphine CPP | Tahsili-Fahadan et al. (2010) | |
| Self-administration | MOD 0.28–1.7 mg/kg/inj i.v. RAT | - Did not induce self-administration | Deroche-Gamonet et al. (2002) |
| MOD 0.1–10 mg/kg/inj i.v. RAT | - Did not maintain self-administration in cocaine-trained rats | Mereu et al. (2020). | |
| MOD 10–32 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 0.03–1 mg/kg/inj RAT | - ↑ Cocaine self-administration for lowest dose of cocaine | Mereu et al. (2020). | |
| MOD 32–128 mg/kg i.p. + cocaine 0.25–1 mg/kg/inj RAT | - NSE on cocaine self-administration | Deroche-Gamonet et al. (2002) | |
| R-MOD 10–100 mg/kg | - NSE on cocaine self-administration | Zhang et al. (2017) | |
| i.p. + cocaine 0.5–1 mg/kg/inj i.v. RAT | - ↓ Reinstatement of cocaine seeking at high doses | ||
| R-MOD/S-MOD 30–100 mg/kg i.p. + nicotine 7.5–60 μg/kg/inj i.v. RAT | - R-MOD ↓ nicotine self-administration - S-MOD ↓ nicotine self-administration at high doses | Wang et al. (2015) | |
| MOD 30–300 mg/kg i.p. + METH 20 μg/50 μL bolus i.v. inj RAT | - ↓ METH self-administration | Reichel and See (2012) | |
| R-MOD 100 mg/kg i.p. + METH 0.05 mg/kg/inj i.v. | - ↓ METH self-administration when given 1-h access to METH | Tunstall et al. (2018) | |
| RAT | - NSE on self-administration when given 6-h access to METH | ||
| MOD 30–300 mg/kg i.p. + METH | - Did not reinstate METH self-administration | Reichel and See (2010, 2012); Holtz et al. (2012) | |
| 20 μg/50 μL bolus inj or 0.05 mg/kg/inj i.v. RAT | - ↓ Cue, drug, and context induced reinstatement | ||
| MOD 32 mg/kg/day i.v. for 7–10 days + cocaine 0.001–0.1 mg/kg/inj i.v. RHESUS MONKEY | - MOD ↓ cocaine self-administration | Newman et al. (2010) | |
| MOD 32–56 mg/kg/day i.v. after extinction of cocaine-maintained self-administration RHESUS MONKEY | - MOD reinstated cocaine self-administration behavior | Newman et al. (2010) | |
| MOD 0.03–0.3 mg/kg i.v., cocaine 0.02–0.05 mg/kg/inj i.v. RHESUS MONKEY | - ↑ Responding in cocaine-trained subjects switched to MOD | Gold and Balster (1996) | |
| MOD 3–10 mg/kg i.v. + cocaine 0.1 mg/kg/inj i.v. RHESUS MONKEY | - High dose induced reinstatement | Andersen et al. (2010) | |
| Intracranial self-stimulation | MOD 20–600 mg/kg p.o. RAT | - Facilitate ICSS | Lazenka and Negus (2017) |
| MOD 50–150 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Facilitate ICSS | Burrows et al. (2015) | |
| R-MOD 50–150 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Trend toward facilitating ICSS | Burrows et al. (2015) | |
| Drug discrimination | MOD 3–300 mg/kg i.p., cocaine-trained 10 mg/kg i.p. RATS | - 67% cocaine substitution at doses above 100 mg/kg | Gold and Balster (1996); Paterson et al. (2010) |
| MOD 30–300 mg/kg i.p., cocaine-trained 10 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Full substitution at 300 mg/kg | Paterson et al. (2010) | |
| MOD 10–100 mg/kg i.p., cocaine-trained 10 mg/kg i.p. MICE | - Substitution approached 80% at MOD 56–100 mg/kg administered 5 min before testing, and 100% when administered 60 min before testing | Mereu et al. (2017) | |
| R-MOD/S-MOD 10–100 mg/kg i.p., cocaine-trained 10 mg/kg i.p. MICE | - Full substitution | Loland et al. (2012) | |
| MOD 3.2–32 mg/kg i.m., cocaine-trained 0.18–0.4 mg/kg i.m. RHESUS MONKEYS | - 75% substitution | Newman et al. (2010) | |
| Cognitive function | MOD 64 mg/kg p.o. + phencyclidine 5 mg/kg i.p. twice daily for 7 days RAT | - Improved phencyclidine-induced object recognition memory deficits | Redrobe et al. (2010) |
| MOD 30–90 mg/kg i.p. + METH 1 mg/kg s.c. for 7 days MOUSE | - Improved METH induced object recognition memory deficits | González et al. (2014) | |
| MOD 100 mg/kg i.p. + METH 4 mg/kg i.p. 2 h apart, 4 times/day MOUSE | - Improved METH induced object recognition memory deficits | Reichel et al. (2014) | |
| MOD 50–75 mg/kg/day p.o. for 30 days RAT | - ↑ Memory on Morris Water Maze and passive avoidance task | Alam and Choudhary (2018) | |
| MOD 50–75 mg/kg/day p.o. for 30 days + haloperidol 1 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - Haloperidol ↓ MOD effects on Morris Water Maze and on passive avoidance task | Alam and Choudhary (2018) | |
| MOD 0.75–75 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - ↑ Learning rate and memory on Morris Water Maze - Low dose ↑ memory of contextual fear conditioning - High dose ↓ memory of contextual fear conditioning - NSE on cued conditioning | Shuman et al. (2009) | |
| MOD 0.75–75 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - NSE on memory of naïve subjects | Garcia et al. (2013) | |
| MOD 64 mg/kg p.o. + 20% alcohol (4–6 g/kg/day prenatally, 21 days) | - ↓ Impulsive responses in healthy and prenatal alcohol-treated rats | Heyer-Osorno and Juárez (2020) | |
| RAT | - ↓ Response latency in prenatal alcohol-treated rats only. | ||
| MOD 32–64 mg/kg i.p. for 5 days MOUSE | - ↑ Speed of learning - NSE on spatial working memory | Béracochéa et al. (2002) | |
| MOD 64 mg/kg i.p. for 15 days | - NSE on working memory errors | Burgos et al. (2010) | |
| RAT | - ↓ Long-term memory errors | ||
| - ↓ Successes in learning task | |||
| R-MOD 1–10 mg/kg i.p. + DMSO 1 mL/kg i.p. RAT | - Rescued DMSO-induced deficits in hole-board task | Shanmugasundaram et al. (2017) | |
| - NSE on normal functioning subjects | |||
| MOD 32–64 mg/kg i.p. MOUSE | - ↑ Speed of learning | Béracochéa et al. (2003) | |
| MOD 30–100 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - ↑ Speed of learning at high doses | Ward et al. (2004) | |
| MOD 8–64 mg/kg p.o. | - ↑ Visual attention | Morgan et al. (2007) | |
| RAT | - ↑ Impulse control | ||
| - ↓ Premature responses | |||
| - NSE on visual discrimination performance | |||
| MOD 32–128 mg/kg p.o. | - NSE on attentional performance | Waters et al. (2005) | |
| RAT | - NSE on deficits induced by parametric or pharmacological manipulations | ||
| - ↑ Premature responding at high doses | |||
| MOD 3–100 mg/kg i.p. RAT | - ↓ Reaction time in subjects with slow baseline reaction times | Eagle et al. (2007) | |
| - NSE on subjects with fast baseline reaction time |
MOD, modafinil; METH, methamphetamine; CPP, conditioned place preference; ICSS, intracranial self-stimulation; i.p., intraperitoneal; i.v., intravenous; s.c., subcutaneous; p.o., oral administration; i.m., intramuscular; NSE, not a significant effect; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease.
Locomotion, Stereotypy, and Behavioral Sensitization
Acute administration of psychostimulant drugs of abuse generally produces a dose-dependent stimulation of exploratory behaviors, including locomotion and stereotyped movements in rodents (Sahakian et al., 1975). Repeated administration of psychostimulants might result in behavioral sensitization (Kalivas and Duffy, 1993; Mereu et al., 2015), a phenomena related to neurobiological adaptations (Ghasemzadeh et al., 2009; Bowers et al., 2010), which lead to a heightened behavioral response to a psychostimulant. The potential of novel drugs to cause sensitization can be indicative of their potential neurological long-term effects that could be related to the development of drug dependence (Kauer and Malenka, 2007).
Modafinil administered alone induced dose-dependent changes in locomotion and stereotyped movements in rats (Zolkowska et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2010; Alam and Choudhary, 2018) and mice (Paterson et al., 2010; Wuo-Silva et al., 2011, 2016; Young et al., 2011), with similar results found in response to R-MOD (Zhang et al., 2017). However, a report by Shuman et al. (2012) found no significant change in locomotion in mice treated with both low and high doses of MOD (Shuman et al., 2012). In rhesus monkeys, nighttime locomotion increased, but daytime locomotion had no significant effect (Andersen et al., 2010), calling into question whether the behaviors measured in these assays are due to the same mechanisms as psychostimulant drugs, or if it is a by-product of the primary wake inducing effects of MOD (Chang et al., 2010). In another report, when locomotion was tested relative to time spent awake in rats, the time awake increased, but locomotor activity only increased for the lowest dose administered (30 mg/kg) (Wisor et al., 2006).
The locomotor activating effects of MOD have also been tested in combination with several psychiatric medications and abused psychostimulants that affect brain neurotransmission at different levels. Haloperidol, a DA D2 receptor antagonist and a commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication, decreased MOD induced locomotion in rats (Alam and Choudhary, 2018), indicating a potential interaction between MOD-induced stimulation of DA levels by blockade of DAT, and inhibition of DA transmission due to blockade of DA D2 receptors by haloperidol. Further, these effects suggest the potential interactions of medications for mental disorders and addiction, which are often found comorbidly. A pretreatment with MOD did not produce significant alteration in cocaine-induced locomotion in mice (Shuman et al., 2012), but MOD significantly decreased METH induced locomotion in rats (Zolkowska et al., 2009), indicating a lack of compounding effects on locomotor activities of MOD in the latter report, which could be dependent on differences in the specific mechanisms of action between different stimulants: cocaine is a DAT blocker, while METH is a DAT substrate and a blocker of the vesicular VMAT2 transporter.
It has been reported that repeated MOD exposure in rats (Chang et al., 2010) and mice (Paterson et al., 2010; Wuo-Silva et al., 2011) would induce behavioral sensitization of locomotion and stereotyped movements, which is further enhanced by exposure to stress (Alam and Chaudhary, 2020). Also, clear individual differences in responses of mice to MOD-induced sensitization have been found (da Costa Soeiro et al., 2012), indicating the importance of better understanding how these differences may lead to individualized treatment. Rapid-onset sensitization was decreased by DA antagonists SCH23390 and sulpiride (Wuo-Silva et al., 2019), and behavioral cross-sensitization was induced between MOD and apomorphine, a direct DA agonist (Chang et al., 2010). MOD administered with cocaine (Wuo-Silva et al., 2011, 2016; Shuman et al., 2012) or METH (da Costa Soeiro et al., 2012) also caused bidirectional sensitization in mice, indicating similar neurological effects of these drugs. While these results require further validation, they may indicate possible neuronal plasticity, which for some drugs has been suggested to have a role in their dependence producing actions (Kauer and Malenka, 2007).
Conditioned Place Preference
Drug CPP paradigms consist of classically conditioning an animal to associate a contextually unique location (chamber) with administration of a drug reinforcer, while a different chamber is associated with administration of the reinforcer’s vehicle. After training, animals are given the opportunity to freely explore the distinct locations previously associated with administration of the reinforcer or its vehicle. Assessing the difference in time spent by animals in the two chambers would provide an index of their preference (potentially drug-seeking behavior), indifference, or even aversion toward the chamber associated with the reinforcer (Tzschentke, 2007). Induction of CPP can be obtained by administration of specific doses of drugs of abuse, for example psychostimulants, such as cocaine (Mueller and Stewart, 2000; Itzhak and Martin, 2002) and METH (Itzhak and Martin, 2002), but can also be obtained through illicit drugs (Liu et al., 2008) and other natural reinforcers such as palatable foods (Velázquez-Sánchez et al., 2015). Therefore, CPP is a common preclinical assay that could be used to assess the potential pleasurable effects of a novel medication and to evaluate its potential for abuse.
Modafinil administered alone was unable to induce CPP in rats when administered orally (Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2002), or by intraperitoneal injection (Tahsili-Fahadan et al., 2010; Quisenberry et al., 2013), in contrast with results found in mice (Nguyen et al., 2011; Wuo-Silva et al., 2011; Shuman et al., 2012). These results indicate a minimal, if any, pleasurable effect of MOD, resulting in a low abuse liability for naïve subjects. However, the results in mice indicate a potential species difference, thus further investigation into various model species is required to thoroughly understand the effects of MOD.
The CPP assay can also be applied to understand whether MOD can reinstate seeking of the pleasurable effects of an extinguished behavioral response to a drug of abuse (Napier et al., 2013). Practically, the chamber previously associated with administration of the reinforcer is no longer associated to it, leading the subjects to forget the learned association and return to spending equal amounts of time in both chambers. Reinstatement of CPP occurs quickly following a single administration of the reinforcer. Administration of MOD alone has been shown to reinstate cocaine induced CPP in rats (Bernardi et al., 2009). In contrast to psychostimulants, opioid CPP is not reinstated by MOD treatment (Tahsili-Fahadan et al., 2010). These studies indicate a potential relapse inducing effect of MOD, which may be detrimental to PSUD target subjects. Further investigation is required to determine the varying effects of MOD on reinstatement of drug seeking for different drugs of abuse.
Self-Administration
The abuse potential of a substance can be assessed by using animal models of self-administration behavior, which could also model the transition from sampling or recreational use of a substance to its compulsive intake (Ator and Griffiths, 2003; Edwards and Koob, 2013). Compulsive self-administration behavior in animals has been observed under specific experimental operational conditions when selected doses of psychostimulant drugs of abuse such as cocaine or amphetamines were made available (Deneau et al., 1969). In these models, the rate at which subjects would self-administer a substance could indicate the potential for abuse of a novel medication.
Modafinil (0.28–1.7 mg/kg/inj) (Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2002), alone did not promote intravenous self-administration behavior in naïve rats, indicating a lack of MOD reinforcing effects at the doses tested. Further, MOD alone (0.1–10 mg/kg/inj) did not maintain self-administration behavior in rats previously trained with intravenous doses of cocaine (Mereu et al., 2020), and similarly R-MOD was not self-administered in rats trained with nicotine (Wang et al., 2015). However, administration of MOD increased behavioral response rates for at least one dose for each subject in Rhesus monkeys previously trained to self-administer cocaine (Gold and Balster, 1996). This contradiction may be due to species differences or other procedural variables and requires further investigation.
Acute MOD treatment prior to psychostimulant self-administration sessions might indicate whether MOD would affect the reinforcing effects of those drugs. MOD or R-MOD pretreatment did not affect intravenous cocaine self-administration in rats (Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2017). In contrast, a more recent study showed increased cocaine self-administration behavior at low cocaine doses (Mereu et al., 2020). Such effect was surprisingly not accompanied by enhancement of cocaine-induced stimulation of NAS DA levels, but it was reversed by pretreatments with carbenoxolone, an inhibitor of electrotonic coupling (Mereu et al., 2020). In rats, R-MOD has been shown to decrease METH (Tunstall et al., 2018) and nicotine self-administration behavior (Wang et al., 2015). Moreover, when MOD was administered chronically, it decreased cocaine self-administration responding in Rhesus monkeys (Newman et al., 2010).
After animals acquire and maintain self-administration behavior induced by abused psychostimulants, these behaviors can be extinguished by stopping drug-injections or eliminating conditioned stimuli associated with the availability or the injection of the drug. After extinction, it has been shown that non-contingent injections of the training drug or reintroduction of its associated cues can reinstate the operant behavior required to deliver the drug, suggesting a potential for relapse. These procedures could also assess the potential effects of test compounds, administered alone or as a pre-treatment, on the likelihood of relapse. Using these procedures, MOD administered alone, either acutely (Reichel and See, 2010; Holtz et al., 2012) or chronically (Reichel and See, 2012), did not reinstate behavior in rats initially trained to self-administer METH. Similar results were found with administration of R-MOD (Wang et al., 2015). However, in rhesus monkeys previously trained to self-administer cocaine, a high dose (10 mg/kg) induced reinstatement of cocaine responding (Andersen et al., 2010), which may indicate a species difference could be a factor in the obtained results. In METH-primed reinstatement tests, both acute (Reichel and See, 2010) and chronic (Reichel and See, 2012) MOD pretreatments attenuated reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior in both male and female rats (Holtz et al., 2012). MOD pretreatments did not significantly modify likelihood for reinstatement of cocaine self-administration behavior in rats (Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2002), but R-MOD reduced cocaine seeking at high doses (Zhang et al., 2017). Additionally, in rats, R-MOD pretreatment reduced nicotine-induced reinstatement of self-administration behavior (Wang et al., 2015). These results indicate that, in contrast to abused psychostimulants, MOD and R-MOD do not induce self-administration behavior, suggesting limited, if any, abuse liability. Also, they may diminish the potential for abuse of psychostimulants or reduce the drive to obtain them, and, finally, attenuate drug-induced reinstatement of drug seeking behaviors, suggesting a potential therapeutic effect in the prevention of relapse to drug use.
Intracranial Self-Stimulation
Intracranial self-stimulation is another indicator of the potential abuse liability of a substance. In this procedure, electrodes are placed in the medial forebrain bundle, and electrical stimulation is given when the subject performs the required operant task, for example nose-poking or pressing a lever. In comparison to self-administration studies, where the drug itself acts as the reinforcer, the electrical stimulation is the reinforcer in ICSS studies, allowing the assessment of whether the drug causes increased sensitivity to rewarding stimuli by altering the self-stimulation rates (Negus and Miller, 2014). Cocaine, METH, and other monoamine releasers have been found to facilitate ICSS (Bauer et al., 2013; Negus and Miller, 2014) with a correlation between facilitation rates and DA selectivity (Bauer et al., 2013; Negus and Miller, 2014), further implicating DA and DAT in the rewarding effects of these drugs.
Modafinil has been shown to facilitate ICSS responses in rats when administered orally (Lazenka and Negus, 2017) and intraperitoneally (Burrows et al., 2015). R-MOD shows a trend toward ICSS facilitation at high doses (150 mg/kg) in rats, without reaching significance (Burrows et al., 2015). However, when compared with commonly abused psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate or cocaine, MOD shows significant changes in ICSS rates only when administered at very high doses, while abused drugs show effects at significantly lower doses (Burrows et al., 2015; Lazenka and Negus, 2017). These dose differences may indicate that MOD abuse liability, if any, might require specific conditions, including very high doses, as compared to commonly abused psychostimulants. Indeed, MOD shows very low, if any, abuse liability in humans, and the benefits offered by MOD treatment against PSUD seem to outweigh the possibility of dependence.
Drug Discrimination
Administration of drugs, especially those abused by humans, would induce specific interoceptive stimuli that could be perceived and recognized by human subjects as well as animals (Kamien et al., 1993). The ability of subjects to discriminate between interoceptive stimuli elicited by a specific drug and those elicited by the drug’s vehicle could be assessed in drug discrimination procedures (Porter et al., 2018). Indeed, the presence or absence of the drug stimulus could result in different operant responses, for example pressing a lever associated to the drug stimulus or that associated to the drug vehicle. Correct responses are usually rewarded with delivery of food pellets. After training with a specific drug, tests can be performed with administration of, for example, novel compounds. It is important to note that drugs belonging to the same pharmacological class (i.e., opioids, cannabinoids, psychostimulants) usually share a common discriminative stimulus specific for their drug class. Thus, while the drug-discrimination procedure does not measure the reinforcing/rewarding effects of drugs of abuse, similarities between subjective effects of a known abused psychostimulant and novel compounds might suggest their potential for abuse (Katz and Goldberg, 1988; Berquist and Fantegrossi, 2018). Thus, several drug-discrimination studies have tested the possibility that administration of MOD produced subjective effects similar to the discriminative stimulus effects of cocaine.
Modafinil doses below 100 mg/kg produced saline only responses when administered 30 min prior to testing, and higher doses partially substituted for cocaine in rats (Gold and Balster, 1996), but later studies found full cocaine substitution (Paterson et al., 2010). In Rhesus monkeys, MOD dose dependently substituted for cocaine in three of four animals at the highest doses when administered immediately prior to testing (Newman et al., 2010) and in mice, MOD fully substituted for cocaine (Loland et al., 2012; Mereu et al., 2017) when administered 5 or 60 min prior to testing. These results indicate that the subjective effects of MOD are similar to those of cocaine. However, there was a significant difference in potency for those effects, and MOD was found about 10 (Loland et al., 2012; Mereu et al., 2017) to 25 times less potent than cocaine (Gold and Balster, 1996). Further, MOD discrimination responses in rats were lower than that of ephedrine, a common over-the-counter decongestant and bronchodilator (Gold and Balster, 1996). These findings might indicate that high doses of MOD and R-MOD could have abuse potential, but the lower doses which would aid in reducing the likelihood of relapse have little abuse potential, as shown by lack of consistent reinforcing effects in the self-administration studies above.
Behavioral Tests Related to Cognitive Functions
Cognitive impairments, such as memory deficits, decision making abilities, and learning rates are a potential concern as a consequence of persistent psychostimulant use (Block et al., 2002). While acute administration of psychostimulants has been found to positively affect cognitive functioning when given immediately prior to testing (Grilly, 2000; Del Olmo et al., 2007), long-term, repeated exposure to these drugs may produce detrimental cognitive effects. For example, in animal models, impairment of cognitive function has been reported in response to chronic administration of METH (Rogers et al., 2008) and cocaine (García-Pardo et al., 2017), among others (Marston et al., 1999; Dalley et al., 2005). MOD has been found to reverse some of the impairments induced by phencyclidine in rats (Redrobe et al., 2010), and by METH in rats and mice (González et al., 2014; Reichel et al., 2014). However, it has been reported that MOD administration had no effect on the object recognition of animals not pretreated with psychostimulants (Reichel et al., 2014), or spatial memory acquisition in rats not treated with DMSO (Shanmugasundaram et al., 2017), indicating a potential restoration of the cognitive impairments induced by drugs of abuse.
Modafinil has also been shown to improve decision making skills by decreasing impulsive responses in rats (Heyer-Osorno and Juárez, 2020), and both acute and chronic administration increases learning and memory abilities in mice (Béracochéa et al., 2002, 2003; Shuman et al., 2009) and rats (Ward et al., 2004; Morgan et al., 2007; Shuman et al., 2009). However, chronic MOD decreased long-term visuo-spatial memory errors, but increased operant conditioning learning errors, indicating an overall benefit for hippocampus dependent tasks in rats (Burgos et al., 2010). in a different study, an enhanced hippocampus dependent memory performance was reported after low doses of MOD (0.75 mg/kg), but not high doses (75 mg/kg), indicating a bell-shaped response curve (Shuman et al., 2009). Further, no effects on impulsive response rates were reported in healthy rats (Waters et al., 2005), however, these findings were explained later when improvements on a response rate task were only present in subjects previously showing slow or impaired response rates (Eagle et al., 2007). In general, these findings indicate that MOD has the potential to enhance cognitive abilities, especially when treating drug of abuse induced impairments, which may influence treatment engagement and likelihood of relapse in PSUD patients (Sofuoglu et al., 2013; Nuijten et al., 2016).
Human Studies on MOD as a Potential Pharmacotherapy for PSUD
Modafinil has shown therapeutic efficacy for treatment of individuals affected by narcolepsy and sleep disorders (Czeisler et al., 2005; Kumar, 2008), and its off-label uses have shown beneficial effects in improving cognitive function in patients with neuropsychiatric disorders, e.g., Parkinson’s disease, ADHD or PSUD (Peñaloza et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2014). Even though MOD has been suggested as a potential therapeutic agent for the treatment of PSUD (Mereu et al., 2013; Tanda et al., 2021), initial concerns related to its potential abuse liability due to its effects on the central dopaminergic system, akin to those associated with many abused psychostimulants (Jasinski, 2000; Stoops et al., 2005; Volkow et al., 2009). Concerns about its potential for abuse have also been raised by the non-medical use of MOD by healthy individuals to enhance their cognitive function, attention, learning, and memory, in order to improve academic or work-related performance (Fond et al., 2016), leading to a significant debate about potential ethical issues related to a so called “cosmetic neurology” (Cakic, 2009; Sahakian and Morein-Zamir, 2011). However, the increased non-medical use of MOD to potentially improve cognitive performance in school or work settings (Sharif et al., 2021) supports the very low risk, if any, of abuse liability (Kate et al., 2012; Ozturk and Deveci, 2014; Krishnan and Chary, 2015).
Potential Therapeutic Effects of MOD for PSUD
As summarized in Table 4, clinical studies testing MOD as a potential treatment for PSUD have generated different and sometime inconsistent results.
TABLE 4.
Results of clinical studies on MOD as a pharmacological therapy for PSUD, including studies on sleep disorders and cognitive dysfunction in PSUD patients.
| Dose/treatment | Subjects | Experimental info | Main effect | References | |
| MOD 300 mg p.o. | Non-drug users | 16 healthy, non-drug users | Analysis of behavioral and subjective effects of MOD in comparison to dextroamphetamine and caffeine. | MOD did not produce subjective effects associated with drug abuse liability. | Warot et al. (1993) |
| MOD 0–400 mg p.o. | 6 healthy, non-drug users | Evaluation of behavioral, and subjective effects of treatment | Under active conditions, MOD produced reinforcing effects. | Stoops et al. (2005) | |
| MOD 200–800 mg, methyl-phenidate 45–90 mg, or placebo p.o. | Poly-substances | 24 patients with poly-substance abuse history including cocaine | Evaluation of behavioral, and subjective effects of treatment. | MOD failed to produce amphetamine-like subjective effects. | Jasinski (2000) |
| MOD 200–600 mg p.o. | Cocaine | 9 cocaine-dependent patients | Evaluation of the subjective effects of cocaine, MOD, and placebo. | MOD did not produce cocaine-like subjective effects. | Rush et al. (2002a) |
| MOD 200–600 mg p.o. | 6 cocaine-dependent patients | Evaluation of the discriminative, subjective, and cardiovascular effects of cocaine and MOD | MOD did not produce cocaine-like subjective effects. | Rush et al. (2002b) | |
| Placebo or MOD 400 mg p.o. for 8 weeks with CBT | 62 cocaine-dependent patients | Urine screen and self-reporting to test cocaine abstinence | MOD (with CBT) improved cocaine dependence more than placebo | Dackis et al. (2005) | |
| MOD 0–800 mg p.o. in combination with 0–40 mg cocaine i.v. | 12 cocaine-dependent patients | Analysis of interactions between MOD and cocaine | MOD did not produce any interactions with cocaine | Malcolm et al. (2006) | |
| MOD 0–400 mg p.o. | 8 cocaine-dependent patients | Analysis of self-administration of cocaine. | MOD attenuated self-administration of cocaine. | Hart et al. (2008) | |
| Placebo, MOD 200, or 400 mg p.o. for 12 weeks with CBT | 210 cocaine-dependent patients | Urine screen and self-reporting to test cocaine abstinence | CBT and MOD effectively increased cocaine non-use days | Anderson et al. (2009) | |
| Placebo or MOD 400 mg p.o. for 16 days. | 20 cocaine-dependent patients | Sleep analyses | MOD normalized daily sleep behavior and architecture during cocaine-abstinence | Morgan et al. (2010) | |
| Placebo, MOD 200, or 400 mg p.o. for 8 weeks with CBT | 210 cocaine-dependent patients | Urine screen and self-reporting to test cocaine abstinence | No significant effects on abstinence for MOD versus placebo, but trends to significance in male patients | Dackis et al. (2012) | |
| Placebo, or MOD 200 mg | 61 cocaine-dependent patients | Urine screen to test cocaine abstinence and neurocognitive tests | MOD improved working memory performance | Kalechstein et al. (2013) | |
| Placebo, MOD 200 mg, escitalopram 20 mg, and MOD 200 mg + escitalopram 20 mg | 64 cocaine-dependent patients | Testing of subjective and reinforcing effects as well as cardiovascular measures | MOD blunted the subjective effects of cocaine but escitalopram did not enhance MOD effect | Verrico et al. (2014) | |
| Placebo or MOD 300 mg | 15 cocaine-dependent patients | Response effort for cocaine | MOD significantly decreased cocaine choice but only under high cost and alternative condition | Foltin et al. (2016) | |
| Placebo, MOD 400 mg, and CBT | 57 cocaine-dependent patients | Sleep analyses | MOD improved sleep and decreased cocaine use | Morgan et al. (2016) | |
| MOD 50–200 mg and CBT | METH | 13 METH-dependent patients | Urine screen and self-reporting to test abstinence in HIV gay men | CBT and MOD showed promise with high treatment retention (77%). | McElhiney et al. (2009) |
| MOD 400 mg and CBT | 8 METH-dependent patients | Self-reporting of psychological effects, urine screen for drug abstinence, and cardiovascular effects | No change in cardiovascular or drug abstinence effects | McGaugh et al. (2009) | |
| Placebo or MOD 200 mg p.o. for 10 weeks | 80 METH-dependent patients | Urine screen and self-reporting to test METH abstinence, blood pressure, weight gain | Reduction in systolic blood pressure and weight gain, but no improvements on METH dependence | Shearer et al. (2009) | |
| Placebo or MOD 200 mg p.o. | 13 METH-dependent patients | Subjective and cardiovascular effects of METH administration and self-administration | No statistical differences in METH use | De La Garza et al. (2010) | |
| Placebo, MOD 400 mg p.o., and CBT for 12 weeks | 71 METH-dependent patients | Urine screen to test METH abstinence | MOD did not improve METH dependence more than placebo | Heinzerling et al. (2010) | |
| Placebo or MOD 200 mg p.o. | 17 METH-dependent patients | Neuropsychological tests | MOD improved verbal memory recall | Hester et al. (2010) | |
| 400 mg MOD or placebo administered p.o. | 11 METH-dependent patients | Memory tests | MOD improved working memory | Kalechstein et al. (2010) | |
| Placebo or MOD 200 mg p.o. | 24 METH-dependent patients and 17 healthy subjects | Cognitive tests (inhibition, working memory, attention) | Improved attention in patients with high METH use | Ghahremani et al. (2011) | |
| Placebo, MOD 200 mg, or 400 mg p.o. for 12 weeks | 210 METH-dependent patients | Urine drug screen for METH non-use week | No effects decrease in METH use. Study compounded by patient compliance issues. | Anderson et al. (2012) | |
| Placebo or MOD 200 mg | 18 METH-dependent patients | Evaluation of daytime sleepiness and abstinence | Positive effects on reducing daytime sleepiness associated with decreased METH craving | Mahoney et al. (2012) | |
| Placebo or MOD 200 mg p.o. | 19 METH-dependent patients | Self-reporting of sleep, physiological, and craving/withdraw measures | No significant effects of MOD. | Lee et al. (2013) | |
| MOD 200 mg p.o. | 80 METH withdrawal patients | Sleep analysis | Improvements in sleep quality | Moosavi et al. (2019) | |
| Placebo or MOD 200 mg p.o. | Nicotine | 157 nicotine-dependent patients | Biochemical analysis of nicotine abstinence | No significant effects of MOD | Schnoll et al. (2008) |
| Placebo, MOD 200–800mg, or methylphenidate 45–90 mg p.o. | Poly-substance users | 24 patients with polysubstance abuse history including cocaine | Evaluation of behavioral, and subjective effects of treatment | MOD failed to produce amphetamine like subjective effects. | Jasinski (2000) |
p.o., oral administration; i.v., intravenous; METH, methamphetamine; CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy.
In an early double-blind, placebo-controlled 8-week study with 62 cocaine dependent patients, MOD 400 mg daily, combined with CBT, significantly improved BE (benzoylecgonine - a cocaine metabolite) negative urine samples over placebo, and significantly increased abstinence rate (3 or more weeks) (Dackis et al., 2005). That study also indicated the safety of MOD administered to cocaine-dependent individuals (Dackis et al., 2005), a finding consistent with previous experimental safety studies that indicated the safety of the co-administration of MOD and intravenous cocaine (Dackis et al., 2003; Malcolm et al., 2006). More recently, another double-blind, placebo-controlled study with cocaine dependent patients (N = 94), over an 8-week period, showed that patients treated with 300 mg MOD daily, combined with weekly individual therapy, were significantly more likely to be abstinent than those treated with placebo and weekly individual therapy (Kampman et al., 2015). Furthermore, MOD-treated patients reported significantly lower craving levels compared to those treated with placebo (Kampman et al., 2015). Other experimental human laboratory studies have investigated the potential role of MOD in modulating cocaine’s subjective effects, such as self-reported decreases in ‘good effects,’ ‘stimulation’ and ‘high’ (Malcolm et al., 2006; Hart et al., 2008; McGaugh et al., 2009; Verrico et al., 2014). Further, a decrease in cocaine-associated cardiovascular effects was reported after treatments with both 200 and 400 mg MOD doses, showing an objective physical response, as well as decreased self-administration of high cocaine doses (25 and 50 mg) (Hart et al., 2008).
While the safety of MOD treatments has also been observed in METH-dependent individuals (McGaugh et al., 2009), clinical studies on METH-dependent subjects are less promising than those in cocaine-dependents, although METH studies have been conducted in significantly smaller samples. For example, in a small trial of 13 METH-addicted patients treated with 200 mg of MOD, the authors did not find any significant differences versus placebo, although they reported trends of lowering METH choice by 25% in 3 days of treatment (De La Garza et al., 2010). In a different study, MOD, 200 mg daily, was tested over a 7-day inpatient period on 19 METH abstinent subjects, but no differences, compared to placebo, were found for abstinence, reported craving, or sleep measures (Lee et al., 2013). In another study, METH-dependent patients were assigned to placebo or 200 mg of MOD daily for 10 weeks (Shearer et al., 2009), resulting in no difference in retention and medical adherence between placebo and MOD in self-reported use and urine analysis. The study limitations of relying on self-reported measures and small sample size may confound the results and explain some of the variability among clinical studies for the efficacy of MOD in PSUD (Karila et al., 2010).
Efficacy of MOD Treatments in Subpopulations of Patients With Cocaine or METH Use Disorder but Without Comorbid Dependences From Other Substances
With inconsistencies plaguing the results of MOD clinical studies, future research should be focused on the specific patient groups who showed beneficial effects from MOD treatment. While Shearer et al. (2009) didn’t find significant differences between placebo and MOD treatments in the entire subjects sample, a post hoc analysis showed greatest reductions in METH use compared to placebo with MOD treatments in patients with only METH dependence (removing comorbid opioid dependent patients) (Shearer et al., 2009). MOD didn’t increase the number of non-cocaine use days compared to placebo in a trial of cocaine-dependent patients, but post hoc analysis of data found that MOD was superior to placebo in patients without an alcohol codependency (Anderson et al., 2009). Similar outcomes were also reported in a more recent study, 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in cocaine-dependent subjects without comorbid alcohol dependence, where MOD (300 mg daily) treated patients were more likely to be abstinent from cocaine than patients treated with placebo (Kampman et al., 2015). In another trial on cocaine-dependent patients, no difference was reported between retention or abstinence for MOD treatment compared to placebo, but post hoc analysis revealed a significant gender difference with males taking 400 mg MOD showing a greater estimate of abstinence (Dackis et al., 2012).
In a double-blind, placebo controlled trial, MOD, 400 mg daily over 12 weeks, increased retention, while decreasing METH use, depression symptoms, and cravings in those with high METH use and low CBT attendance (Heinzerling et al., 2010). In a different study, it was found that escitalopram, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and commonly prescribed antidepressant, decreased MOD’s effects, raising concern of MOD’s effect on populations of patients treated for depressive disorders alongside drug addiction (Verrico et al., 2014).
Reduced METH use in patients with an abuse diagnosis that included HIV+ participants was found in a 12-week 200 mg MOD study (McElhiney et al., 2009). In the same study, the patients using METH on average 2.2 days per week reported better MOD effects on fatigue due to withdrawal, as well as maintaining abstinence, than patients who used meth 6 days per week (McElhiney et al., 2009). As clinical research on MOD continues, it is increasingly important to study the groups of individuals that do and do not respond to treatment in order to provide critical information toward precision medicine.
MOD Effects on Sleep Disorders Related to Psychostimulant Use
The relationship between sleep disorders and substance abuse is only loosely understood, but shows some relation with sleep problems reinforcing substance use disorders, as well as substance use leading to sleep disturbances (Angarita et al., 2016). In their review, Angarita et al. (2016) characterized several sleep disturbances produced by alcohol, cocaine, cannabis, and opioid short-term and long-term abstinence, suggesting that substantial research into the effectiveness of sleep agents for addiction treatment is needed. A more recent review links the effects of neurotransmitters on sleep during intoxication and withdrawal from a variety of drugs, but notes the lack of research depth on these neurological interactions and their bearing on drug abuse and dependence (Valentino and Volkow, 2020). Also, gender differences regarding the relationship between drug abstinence and sleep have been described (Coffey et al., 2000; Morgan et al., 2009). A study of short-term METH abstinence found a positive correlation between wanting a nap and craving METH (Mahoney et al., 2012). The study found that a single dose of MOD 200 mg decreased daytime sleepiness, supporting the potential use of MOD as an adjunct treatment for PSUD.
Modafinil has been shown to increase and normalize slow wave sleep to healthy patterns in abstinent cocaine users (Morgan et al., 2010). It was also recently found that while increasing slow wave sleep did not lead to complete, continued abstinence, 400 mg MOD treatment was associated with higher daily rates of abstinence and more consecutive days of abstinence (Morgan et al., 2016). Further, is has been reported that 200 mg MOD improved the sleep quantity and pattern in patients during METH withdrawal (Moosavi et al., 2019).
MOD Effects on Cognitive Impairment Produced by Psychostimulant Use
Addiction brings changes to the brain beyond the reward pathway. Mental processing dysfunction can hamper rehabilitation attempts and, thus, a drug that can attenuate these risks would be beneficial to the addicted population (Gould, 2010). Cocaine-dependent patients in abstinence showed lower activation compared to healthy controls in areas associated with motor and cognitive functions (Kjome et al., 2010). There have been quite a few studies into MOD’s effects on working memory. In a double-blind, placebo controlled study, it was shown that 400 mg MOD improved working memory in 11 METH-dependent subjects, with poor performance at baseline, after 3 days of treatment (Kalechstein et al., 2010). The same group later showed, in a placebo controlled study, that MOD at 200 mg improved visual and working memory in a group of 61 cocaine-dependent patients, as well as attention and impulsivity, with 5 days of treatment (Kalechstein et al., 2013). While promising, these studies also hold some limitations, in particular the short-term period of treatment and the small samples.
Even though not directly related to PSUD, effects of MOD on performance related to cognitive function were shown in a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study, where 200 mg of MOD administered acutely improved cognitive control in alcohol-dependent patients, but not in the healthy control group (Schmaal et al., 2013). Also, the same researchers showed that administration of 200 mg of MOD improved impulsive decision making in alcohol dependent patients compared to healthy controls (Schmaal et al., 2014). The alcohol dependent group had poor baseline performances compared to the healthy group. This difference could imply that MOD normalizes the brain’s engagement to improve cognition to normal levels in lower performing groups, and the authors suggest that there was likely no room for improvement by MOD in the healthy controls (Schmaal et al., 2014). Further, it has been shown that MOD improved response inhibition in alcohol dependent patients whose initial response was poor (Schmaal et al., 2013). Similar effects related to PSUD were shown in METH-dependent patients in a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study, where 200 mg of MOD increased poorly cognitive performance in METH-dependent patients to the same level as the healthy control (Ghahremani et al., 2011). Post hoc analysis also revealed that MOD produced larger effects in lower performing participants. Similar findings were also reported in METH-dependent patients where MOD treatments showed larger effects on inhibitory control, processing speed/attention, and motor speed in subject using higher levels of METH compared to those with lower METH usage (Dean et al., 2011). In another study, it was shown that cocaine dependent participants had lower Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) scores but MOD treated cocaine-dependent participants had higher BART scores, which were comparable to the healthy placebo, showing a normalization of risk taking while on MOD (Canavan et al., 2014).
In a study combining MOD with CBT, it was found that crack cocaine-dependent patients with lower baselines of impulsivity (self-reported) had higher CBT retention and lower crack cocaine use (Nuijten et al., 2016). However, MOD treatment in these patients did not improve CBT retention or outcomes, which is likely as a result of the low MOD adherence during this trial. This study weakness was reported by the same researchers showing that only 10% adherence was reported during a 12 week CBT and MOD trial (Nuijten et al., 2015).
Beyond MOD: Drug Development of MOD Analogs as Pharmacotherapeutics for PSUD
The effectiveness of MOD as a medication for PSUD has been shown to reach significance in sub-populations of patients without comorbid dependencies from other drugs. In recent years, this important limitation of MOD efficacy has stimulated the development of new structural analogs of MOD to extend therapeutic actions to a broader population and, thus, maximize the effects of the parent drug for use in treatment of PSUD. Some of these novel agents showing atypical DAT blocker properties, have been highlighted in recently published reviews (Newman et al., 2021; Tanda et al., 2021). Among them, some have been shown to bind with high affinity to DAT, and those that promote an inward facing conformation of DAT have shown behavioral and neurochemical preclinical activities different from those of typical abused psychostimulants (Cao et al., 2010, 2016; Okunola-Bakare et al., 2014). Such effects suggest an atypical DAT blocker profile (Keighron et al., 2019a; Newman et al., 2019, 2021; Tanda et al., 2021) and their potential as novel agents for use in the treatment of PSUD.
The effects of MOD analogs on DA neurochemistry have shown varying results (see Table 5). One of the tested analogs, JJC8-016, was unable to stimulate extracellular levels of DA after systemic administration (Zhang et al., 2017; Keighron et al., 2019b), in contrast to other MOD analogs, like JJC8-088 that significantly increased DA levels in a cocaine-like manner, or like JJC8-091 that elicited significant, but less efficacious, increases in DA levels. It is worth noting that the varying effects on stimulation of DA levels were not a result of an altered efficacy as DAT blockers. Indeed, all of these compounds were able to block and reduce DA uptake, an effect highly correlated to their affinity to DAT, as demonstrated by voltammetry studies in rats and mice (Keighron et al., 2019b; Newman et al., 2019). Moreover, their varying ability to enhance the stimulation of elicited DA release in voltammetry studies was unrelated to their affinity for DAT (Keighron et al., 2019b; Newman et al., 2019). These effects once more suggest that compounds that prefer or stabilize an inward facing conformation of DAT would produce limited, if any, cocaine-like effects (Keighron et al., 2019a, b; Giancola et al., 2020; Slack et al., 2020). The same MOD analogs have been tested in behavioral activities related to the reinforcing effects of psychostimulants, and those showing very low stimulation of DA output in microdialysis and voltammetry studies were also among those that produced limited stimulation of ambulatory activities (Keighron et al., 2019a, b; Giancola et al., 2020; Slack et al., 2020). Also, while they did not elicit acquisition or maintenance of self-administration behavior, these MOD analogs blunted cocaine or METH reinforcing and drug-seeking behaviors (Zhang et al., 2017; Tunstall et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2019), suggesting once more that their atypical DAT blocker profile and potential therapeutic activity could be useful as PSUD medications.
TABLE 5.
Behavioral and neurochemical effects of MOD analogs.
| Agent(s) | Dose(s), species | Behavioral effects | Neurochemical effects | References |
| JJC8-016 | 10–30 mg/kg, i.p. RAT | NSE on locomotion when injected alone ↓ Cocaine-induced hyperlocomotion | NSE on stimulation of NAS DA | Zhang et al. (2017) |
| Did not induce self-administration ↓ Cocaine self-administration | ||||
| ↓ Reinstatement of cocaine seeking behavior | ||||
| 3–100 mg/kg, i.p. MICE | NSE on ambulatory behavior | NSE on stimulation of NAS DA | Keighron et al. (2019b) | |
| NSE on stimulation of evoked DA release in NAS | ||||
| ↓ NAS DA clearance | ||||
| 10–30 mg/kg, i.p. RAT | ↓ METH self-administration following both short and long access to drug | Tunstall et al. (2018) | ||
| JJC8-088 | 1–56 mg/kg, i.p. RATS | ↓ Cocaine self-administration | ↑ NAS DA efflux | Newman et al. (2019) |
| ↑ Optical intracranial self-stimulation | ↑ Evoked DA release in the NAS | |||
| NSE on cocaine PR breakpoints | ↓ NAS DA clearance | |||
| 3–30 mg/kg, i.p. RAT | NSE on METH self-administration following both short and long access to drug | Tunstall et al. (2018) | ||
| 3–56 mg/kg, i.p. MICE | ↑ Ambulatory behavior | ↑ NAS DA efflux | Keighron et al. (2019b) | |
| ↑ Evoked DA release in the NAS | ||||
| ↓ NAS DA clearance | ||||
| JJC8-091 | 1–56 mg/kg, i.p. RATS | NSE on cocaine FR self-administration | ↑ NAS DA efflux | Newman et al. (2019) |
| ↓ PR breakpoints for cocaine | NSE on evoked NAS DA release | |||
| ↓ Cocaine primed reinstatement | ↓ NAS DA clearance | |||
| ↓ Optical intracranial self-stimulation | ||||
| 10–56 mg/kg, i.p. RAT | ↓ METH self-administration following both short and long access to drug | Tunstall et al. (2018) | ||
| 3–100 mg/kg, i.p. MICE | NSE on ambulatory behavior | ↑ NAS DA efflux | Keighron et al. (2019b) | |
| NSE on evoked NAS DA release | ||||
| ↓ NAS DA clearance |
NSE, not a significant effect; METH, methamphetamine; FR, fixed ratio; PR, progressive ratio; i.p., intraperitoneal; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease.
Conclusion
Modafinil is clinically approved for narcolepsy and other sleep disorders (Bastoji and Jouvet, 1988; Broughton et al., 1997; US Modafinil in Narcolepsy Multicenter Study Group, 1998, 2000), but its off-label use for treatment of several psychiatric disorders has been repeatedly reported (Ballon and Feifel, 2006; Peñaloza et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2014). During the last two decades, there have been several preclinical and clinical studies that suggested potential efficacy of MOD as a treatment for PSUD, but also contrasting results from other studies which limited its progression (Lee et al., 2013; Schmitz et al., 2014). Among the positive results, it is interesting to note that after many years of clinical use, there are only a few reports of abuse in MOD-treated patients (Kate et al., 2012; Ozturk and Deveci, 2014; Krishnan and Chary, 2015), a result in agreement with clinical and preclinical studies showing its limited, if any, potential for abuse (Jasinski, 2000; Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2002; Myrick et al., 2004; Food and Drug Administration, 2007; Vosburg et al., 2010). On the other hand, disappointing results of clinical trials testing MOD as a treatment for PSUD have been obtained in the general population of drug-dependents. However, based on results from several of those reports, positive treatment outcomes have been found when the population sample included only subjects with psychostimulant dependency, without concurrent alcohol or other drug dependencies (Anderson et al., 2009; Shearer et al., 2009; Kampman et al., 2015). These studies underscore the importance of pursing personalized treatment approaches for PSUD, similarly to other medical disorders (Hamburg and Collins, 2010; Schork, 2015). It is clear that the complexity of PSUD, the huge differences in how PSUD develops among the population, and the presence of many other individual, genetic, or environmental variables, suggest it is unlikely that there will ever be a “silver bullet” medication to treat all individuals with PSUD. Thus, personalized medicine approaches, together with behavioral cognitive treatments, might be the most effective path to reduce the harm produced by PSUD. While MOD has been shown to improve several emerging pathological conditions related to psychostimulant use, i.e., dependence, sleep, and cognitive impairments, its overall limited success has triggered medicinal chemistry research toward discovery of structural analogs of MOD, that might hold more robust efficacy in PSUD. In conclusion, while MOD could be an effective pharmacological treatment already available for subpopulations of individuals suffering from PSUD, new pharmacological tools derived from MOD show promising preclinical efficacy and could help to provide more efficacious future treatment opportunities for PSUD.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the manuscript and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer TK declared a past co-authorship with one of the authors, AN, to the handling editor.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Gail Seabold for her suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Abbreviations
- ADHD
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
- CNS
central nervous system
- CPP
conditioned place preference
- CBT
cognitive behavioral therapy
- DA
dopamine
- DAT
dopamine transporter
- DS
dorsal striatum
- ICSS
intracranial self-stimulation
- MOD
modafinil
- METH
methamphetamine
- NAcc
nucleus accumbens
- NAS
nucleus accumbens shell
- NE
norepinephrine
- NET
norepinephrine transporter
- PET
positron emission tomography
- PFC
prefrontal cortex
- PSUD
psychostimulant use disorder
- R-MOD
(R)-enantiomer of modafinil
- VMAT2
vesicular monoamine transporter
- VS
ventral striatum.
Footnotes
Funding. This work was supported by the Medication Development Program (Z1A-DA000611), National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, NIH, DHHS.
References
- Alam N., Chaudhary K. (2020). Repeated restraint stress potentiates methylphenidate and modafinil-induced behavioral sensitization in rats. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol. 393 785–795. 10.1007/s00210-019-01790-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Alam N., Choudhary K. (2018). Haloperidol attenuates Methylphenidate and Modafinil induced behavioural sensitization and cognitive enhancement. Metab. Brain Dis. 33 893–906. 10.1007/s11011-018-0190-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Andersen M. L., Kessler E., Murnane K. S., Mcclung J. C., Tufik S., Howell L. L. J. P. (2010). Dopamine transporter-related effects of modafinil in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 210 439–448. 10.1007/s00213-010-1839-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Anderson A. L., Li S.-H., Biswas K., Mcsherry F., Holmes T., Iturriaga E., et al. (2012). Modafinil for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence. J. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 120 135–141. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Anderson A. L., Reid M. S., Li S.-H., Holmes T., Shemanski L., Slee A., et al. (2009). Modafinil for the treatment of cocaine dependence. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 104 133–139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Angarita G. A., Emadi N., Hodges S., Morgan P. T. (2016). Sleep abnormalities associated with alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and opiate use: a comprehensive review. Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract. 11:9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Arias-Carrión O., Stamelou M., Murillo-Rodríguez E., Menéndez-González M., Pöppel E. (2010). Dopaminergic reward system: a short integrative review. Int. Arch. Med. 3:24. 10.1186/1755-7682-3-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ator N. A., Griffiths R. R. (2003). Principles of drug abuse liability assessment in laboratory animals. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 70 S55–S72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ballon J. S., Feifel D. (2006). A systematic review of modafinil: potential clinical uses and mechanisms of action. J. Clin. Psychiatry 67 554–566. 10.4088/jcp.v67n0406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barr A. M., Panenka W. J., Macewan G. W., Thornton A. E., Lang D. J., Honer W. G., et al. (2006). The need for speed: an update on methamphetamine addiction. J. Psychiatry Neurosci. 31 301–313. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bastoji H., Jouvet M. (1988). Successful treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia and narcolepsy with modafinil. Prog. Neuro Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 12 695–700. 10.1016/0278-5846(88)90014-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bauer C., Banks M., Blough B., Negus S. (2013). Use of intracranial self-stimulation to evaluate abuse-related and abuse-limiting effects of monoamine releasers in rats. Br. J. Pharmacol. 168 850–862. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02214.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Béracochéa D., Cagnard B., Célérier A., Le Merrer J., Pérès M., Piérard C. (2001). First evidence of a delay-dependent working memory-enhancing effect of modafinil in mice. Neuroreport 12 375–378. 10.1097/00001756-200102120-00038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Béracochéa D., Celerier A., Borde N., Valleau M., Peres M., Pierard C. (2002). Improvement of learning processes following chronic systemic administration of modafinil in mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 73 723–728. 10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00877-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Béracochéa D., Celerier A., Peres M., Pierard C. (2003). Enhancement of learning processes following an acute modafinil injection in mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 76 473–479. 10.1016/j.pbb.2003.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bernardi R. E., Lewis J. R., Lattal K. M., Berger S. P. (2009). Modafinil reinstates a cocaine conditioned place preference following extinction in rats. Behav. Brain Res. 204 250–253. 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.05.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Berquist M. D., Fantegrossi W. E. (2018). Discriminative stimulus effects of psychostimulants. Curr. Top. Behav. Neurosci. 39 29–49. 10.1007/7854_2017_5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beusterien K. M., Rogers A. E., Walsleben J. A., Emsellem H. A., Reblando J. A., Wang L., et al. (1999). Health-related quality of life effects of modafinil for treatment of narcolepsy. Sleep 22 757–765. 10.1093/sleep/22.6.757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Block R. I., Erwin W. J., Ghoneim M. M. (2002). Chronic drug use and cognitive impairments. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 73 491–504. 10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00816-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bobak M. J., Weber M. W., Doellman M. A., Schuweiler D. R., Athens J. M., Juliano S. A., et al. (2016). Modafinil activates phasic dopamine signaling in dorsal and ventral striata. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 359 460–470. 10.1124/jpet.116.236000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bolla K. I., Rothman R., Cadet J. L. (1999). Dose-related neurobehavioral effects of chronic cocaine use. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 11 361–369. 10.1176/jnp.11.3.361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boutrel B., Koob G. F. (2004). What keeps us awake: the neuropharmacology of stimulants and wakefulness promoting medications. Sleep 27 1181–1194. 10.1093/sleep/27.6.1181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boutrel B., Steiner N., Halfon O. (2013). The hypocretins and the reward function: what have we learned so far? Front. Behav. Neurosci. 7:59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bowers M. S., Chen B. T., Bonci A. (2010). AMPA receptor synaptic plasticity induced by psychostimulants: the past, present, and therapeutic future. Neuron 67 11–24. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bradford S. T., Stamatovic S. M., Dondeti R. S., Keep R. F., Andjelkovic A. V. (2011). Nicotine aggravates the brain postischemic inflammatory response. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circulatory Physiol. 300 H1518–H1529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brandao W. N., Andersen M. L., Palermo-Neto J., Peron J. P., Zager A. (2019). Therapeutic treatment with Modafinil decreases the severity of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice. Int. Immunopharmacol. 75:105809. 10.1016/j.intimp.2019.105809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brandt M. D., Ellwardt E., Storch A. (2014). Short- and long-term treatment with modafinil differentially affects adult Hippocampal neurogenesis. Neuroscience 278 267–275. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Broughton R., Fleming J., George C., Hill J., Kryger M., Moldofsky H., et al. (1997). Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of modafinil in the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy. Neurology 49 444–451. 10.1212/wnl.49.2.444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Burgos H., Castillo A., Flores O., Puentes G., Morgan C., Gatica A., et al. (2010). Effect of modafinil on learning performance and neocortical long-term potentiation in rats. Brain Res. Bull. 83 238–244. 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2010.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Burrows B. T., Watterson L. R., Johnson M. A., Olive M. F. (2015). Effects of modafinil and R-modafinil on brain stimulation reward thresholds: implications for their use in the treatment of psychostimulant dependence. J. Drug Alcohol. Res. 4:235958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cadet J. L., Sheng P., All S., Rothman R., Carlson E., Epstein C. (1994). Rapid communication: attenuation of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxicity in Copper/Zinc Superoxide dismutase transgenic mice. J. Neurochem. 62 380–383. 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1994.62010380.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cakic V. (2009). Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. J. Med. Ethics 35 611–615. 10.1136/jme.2009.030882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Calipari E. S., Ferris M. J., Salahpour A., Caron M. G., Jones S. R. (2013). Methylphenidate amplifies the potency and reinforcing effects of amphetamines by increasing dopamine transporter expression. Nat. Commun. 4:2720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Canavan S. V., Forselius E. L., Bessette A. J., Morgan P. T. (2014). Preliminary evidence for normalization of risk taking by modafinil in chronic cocaine users. Addict. Behav. 39 1057–1061. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.02.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cao J., Prisinzano T. E., Okunola O. M., Kopajtic T., Shook M., Katz J. L., et al. (2010). Structure-activity relationships at the monoamine transporters for a novel series of modafinil (2-[(diphenylmethyl)sulfinyl]acetamide) analogues. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2 48–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cao J., Slack R. D., Bakare O. M., Burzynski C., Rais R., Slusher B. S., et al. (2016). Novel and high Affinity 2-[(Diphenylmethyl)sulfinyl]acetamide (Modafinil) analogues as atypical dopamine transporter inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 59 10676–10691. 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chamberlain S. R., Robbins T. W. (2013). Noradrenergic modulation of cognition: therapeutic implications. J. Psychopharmacol. 27 694–718. 10.1177/0269881113480988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chang S.-T., Tung C.-S., Lin Y.-L., Chuang C.-H., Lee A.-R., Liu Y.-P. (2010). Behavioral and cross sensitization after repeated exposure to modafinil and apomorphine in rats. Chin. J. Physiol. 53 318–327. 10.4077/cjp.2010.amk067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chemelli R. M., Willie J. T., Sinton C. M., Elmquist J. K., Scammell T., Lee C., et al. (1999). Narcolepsy in orexin knockout mice: molecular genetics of sleep regulation. Cell 98 437–451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clarke P. B., Pert A. (1985). Autoradiographic evidence for nicotine receptors on nigrostriatal and mesolimbic dopaminergic neurons. Brain Res. 348 355–358. 10.1016/0006-8993(85)90456-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coffey S. F., Dansky B. S., Carrigan M. H., Brady K. T. (2000). Acute and protracted cocaine abstinence in an outpatient population: a prospective study of mood, sleep and withdrawal symptoms. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 59 277–286. 10.1016/s0376-8716(99)00126-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Compton W. M., Han B., Blanco C., Johnson K., Jones C. M. (2018). Prevalence and correlates of prescription stimulant use, misuse, use disorders, and motivations for misuse among adults in the United States. Am. J. Psychiatry 175 741–755. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17091048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cope Z. A., Minassian A., Kreitner D., Macqueen D. A., Milienne-Petiot M., Geyer M. A., et al. (2017). Modafinil improves attentional performance in healthy, non-sleep deprived humans at doses not inducing hyperarousal across species. Neuropharmacology 125 254–262. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.07.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Czeisler C. A., Walsh J. K., Roth T., Hughes R. J., Wright K. P., Kingsbury L., et al. (2005). Modafinil for excessive sleepiness associated with shift-work sleep disorder. N. Engl. J. Med. 353 476–486. 10.1056/nejmoa041292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Czub S., Koutsilieri E., Sopper S., Czub M., Stahl-Hennig C., Müller J., et al. (2001). Enhancement of central nervous system pathology in early simian immunodeficiency virus infection by dopaminergic drugs. Acta Neuropathol. 101 85–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- da Costa Soeiro A., Moreira K. D. M., Abrahao K. P., Quadros I. M. H., Oliveira M. G. M. (2012). Individual differences are critical in determining modafinil-induced behavioral sensitization and cross-sensitization with methamphetamine in mice. Behav. Brain Res. 233 367–374. 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dackis C. A., Kampman K. M., Lynch K. G., Pettinati H. M., O’brien C. P. (2005). A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for cocaine dependence. Neuropsychopharmacology 30 205–211. 10.1038/sj.npp.1300600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dackis C. A., Kampman K. M., Lynch K. G., Plebani J. G., Pettinati H. M., Sparkman T., et al. (2012). A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for cocaine dependence. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 43 303–312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dackis C. A., Lynch K. G., Yu E., Samaha F. F., Kampman K. M., Cornish J. W., et al. (2003). Modafinil and cocaine: a double-blind, placebo-controlled drug interaction study. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 70 29–37. 10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00335-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dalley J. W., Lääne K., Pena Y., Theobald D. E., Everitt B. J., Robbins T. W. (2005). Attentional and motivational deficits in rats withdrawn from intravenous self-administration of cocaine or heroin. Psychopharmacology 182 579–587. 10.1007/s00213-005-0107-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Das G. (1993). Cocaine abuse in North America: a milestone in history. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 33 296–310. 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1993.tb04661.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Daws L. C., Callaghan P. D., Morón J. A., Kahlig K. M., Shippenberg T. S., Javitch J. A., et al. (2002). Cocaine increases dopamine uptake and cell surface expression of dopamine transporters. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 290 1545–1550. 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De La Garza R., Zorick T., London E. D., Newton T. F. (2010). Evaluation of modafinil effects on cardiovascular, subjective, and reinforcing effects of methamphetamine in methamphetamine-dependent volunteers. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 106 173–180. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.08.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- de Lima M. S., Farrell M., Reisser A. A. L., Soares B. (2003). Antidepressants for cocaine dependence. Cochrane Database Syst. Res. 7:CD002950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- de Saint Hilaire Z., Orosco M., Rouch C., Blanc G., Nicolaidis S. (2001). Variations in extracellular monoamines in the prefrontal cortex and medial hypothalamus after modafinil administration: a microdialysis study in rats. Neuroreport 12 3533–3537. 10.1097/00001756-200111160-00032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dean A. C., Sevak R. J., Monterosso J. R., Hellemann G., Sugar C. A., London E. D. (2011). Acute modafinil effects on attention and inhibitory control in methamphetamine-dependent humans. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 72 943–953. 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Del Olmo N., Higuera-Matas A., Miguens M., Garcia-Lecumberri C., Ambrosio E. (2007). Cocaine self-administration improves performance in a highly demanding water maze task. Psychopharmacology 195 19–25. 10.1007/s00213-007-0873-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Deneau G., Yanagita T., Seevers M. (1969). Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey. Psychopharmacologia 16 30–48. 10.1007/bf00405254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Deroche-Gamonet V., Darnaudery M., Bruins-Slot L., Piat F., Le Moal M., Piazza P. (2002). Study of the addictive potential of modafinil in naive and cocaine-experienced rats. Psychopharmacology 161 387–395. 10.1007/s00213-002-1080-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dhillon N. K., Peng F., Bokhari S., Callen S., Shin S.-H., Zhu X., et al. (2008). Cocaine-mediated alteration in tight junction protein expression and modulation of CCL2/CCR2 axis across the blood-brain barrier: implications for HIV-dementia. J. Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 3 52–56. 10.1007/s11481-007-9091-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Di Chiara G., Acquas E., Tanda G., Cadoni C. (1993a). Drugs of abuse: biochemical surrogates of specific aspects of natural reward? Biochem. Soc. Symp. 59 65–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Di Chiara G., Imperato A. (1988). Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85 5274–5278. 10.1073/pnas.85.14.5274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Di Chiara G., Tanda G., Bassareo V., Pontieri F., Acquas E., Fenu S., et al. (1999). Drug addiction as a disorder of associative learning. Role of nucleus accumbens shell/extended amygdala dopamine. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 877 461–485. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09283.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Di Chiara G., Tanda G., Cadoni C., Acquas E., Bassareo V., Carboni E. (1998). Homologies and differences in the action of drugs of abuse and a conventional reinforcer (food) on dopamine transmission: an interpretative framework of the mechanism of drug dependence. Adv. Pharmacol. 42 983–987. 10.1016/s1054-3589(08)60911-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Di Chiara G., Tanda G., Frau R., Carboni E. (1993b). On the preferential release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens by amphetamine: further evidence obtained by vertically implanted concentric dialysis probes. Psychopharmacology 112 398–402. 10.1007/bf02244939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Diana M. (2011). The dopamine hypothesis of drug addiction and its potential therapeutic value. Front. Psychiatry 2:64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Duchêne A., Perier M., Zhao Y., Liu X., Thomasson J., Chauveau F., et al. (2016). Impact of astroglial connexins on modafinil pharmacological properties. Sleep 39 1283–1292. 10.5665/sleep.5854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Duflou J. (2020). Psychostimulant use disorder and the heart. Addiction 115 175–183. 10.1111/add.14713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eagle D. M., Tufft M. R., Goodchild H. L., Robbins T. W. J. P. (2007). Differential effects of modafinil and methylphenidate on stop-signal reaction time task performance in the rat, and interactions with the dopamine receptor antagonist cis-flupenthixol. Psychopharmacology 192 193–206. 10.1007/s00213-007-0701-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards S., Koob G. F. (2013). Escalation of drug self-administration as a hallmark of persistent addiction liability. Behav. Pharmacol. 24 356–362. 10.1097/fbp.0b013e3283644d15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elkashef A., Holmes T. H., Bloch D. A., Shoptaw S., Kampman K., Reid M. S., et al. (2005). Retrospective analyses of pooled data from CREST I and CREST II trials for treatment of cocaine dependence. Addiction 100 91–101. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00986.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Espana R., Baldo B., Kelley A., Berridge C. (2001). Wake-promoting and sleep-suppressing actions of hypocretin (orexin): basal forebrain sites of action. Neuroscience 106 699–715. 10.1016/s0306-4522(01)00319-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Farrell M., Martin N. K., Stockings E., Bórquez A., Cepeda J. A., Degenhardt L., et al. (2019). Responding to global stimulant use: challenges and opportunities. Lancet 394 1652–1667. 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32230-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., Antonelli T., O’connor W. T., Tanganelli S., Rambert F. A., Fuxe K. (1997a). Modafinil: an antinarcoleptic drug with a different neurochemical profile to d-amphetamine and dopamine uptake blockers. Biol. Psychiatry 42 1181–1183. 10.1016/s0006-3223(97)00353-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., Antonelli T., O’connor W. T., Tanganelli S., Rambert F., Fuxe K. (1997b). The antinarcoleptic drug modafinil increases glutamate release in thalamic areas and hippocampus. Neuroreport 8 2883–2887. 10.1097/00001756-199709080-00016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., Antonelli T., O’connor W. T., Tanganelli S., Rambert F. A., Fuxe K. (1998). The effects of modafinil on striatal, pallidal and nigral GABA and glutamate release in the conscious rat: evidence for a preferential inhibition of striato-pallidal GABA transmission. Neurosci. Lett. 253 135–138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., Antonelli T., Tanganelli S., O’connor W. T., De La Mora M. P., Mendez-Franco J., et al. (1999). The vigilance promoting drug modafinil increases extracellular glutamate levels in the medial preoptic area and the posterior hypothalamus of the conscious rat: prevention by local GABA A receptor blockade. Neuropsychopharmacology 20 346–356. 10.1016/s0893-133x(98)00085-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., Fuxe K., Tanganelli S., Fernandez M., Rambert F., Antonelli T. (2000). Amplification of cortical serotonin release: a further neurochemical action of the vigilance-promoting drug modafinil. Neuropharmacology 39 1974–1983. 10.1016/s0028-3908(00)00019-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., O’connor W. T., Li X. M., Rimondini R., Beani L., Ungerstedt U., et al. (1996a). Evidence for a differential cholecystokinin-B and -A receptor regulation of GABA release in the rat nucleus accumbens mediated via dopaminergic and cholinergic mechanisms. Neuroscience 73 941–950. 10.1016/0306-4522(96)00098-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., Tanganelli S., O’connor W. T., Antonelli T., Rambert F., Fuxe K. (1996b). The vigilance promoting drug modafinil decreases GABA release in the medial preoptic area and in the posterior hypothalamus of the awake rat: possible involvement of the serotonergic 5-HT3 receptor. Neurosci. Lett. 220 5–8. 10.1016/s0304-3940(96)13212-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro L., Tanganelli S., O’connor W. T., Antonelli T., Rambert F., Fuxe K. (1996c). The vigilance promoting drug modafinil increases dopamine release in the rat nucleus accumbens via the involvement of a local GABAergic mechanism. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 306 33–39. 10.1016/0014-2999(96)00182-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Finke K., Dodds C. M., Bublak P., Regenthal R., Baumann F., Manly T., et al. (2010). Effects of modafinil and methylphenidate on visual attention capacity: a TVA-based study. Psychopharmacology 210 317–329. 10.1007/s00213-010-1823-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Foltin R. W., Haney M., Bedi G., Evans S. M. (2016). Modafinil decreases cocaine choice in human cocaine smokers only when the response requirement and the alternative reinforcer magnitude are large. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 150 8–13. 10.1016/j.pbb.2016.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fond G., Gavaret M., Vidal C., Brunel L., Riveline J.-P., Micoulaud-Franchi J.-A., et al. (2016). (Mis) use of prescribed stimulants in the medical student community: motives and behaviors: a population-based cross-sectional study. Medicine 95:e3366. 10.1097/md.0000000000003366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Food and Drug Administration (2007). FDA Approved Labeling, PROVIGIL§(modafinil) Tablets. Silver Spring: Food and Drug Administration. [Google Scholar]
- Frye M. A., Grunze H., Suppes T., Mcelroy S. L., Keck P. E., Walden J., et al. (2007). A placebo-controlled evaluation of adjunctive modafinil in the treatment of bipolar depression. Am. J. Psychiatry 164 1242–1249. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06060981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gan X., Zhang L., Berger O., Stins M. F., Way D., Taub D. D., et al. (1999). Cocaine enhances brain endothelial adhesion molecules and leukocyte migration. Clin. Immunol. 91 68–76. 10.1006/clim.1998.4683 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Garcia V. A., De Freitas B. S., Busato S. B., Portal B. C. D. A., Piazza F. C., Schröder N. J. N. (2013). Differential effects of modafinil on memory in naïve and memory-impaired rats. Neuropharmacology 75 304–311. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.07.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- García-Pardo M. P., De La Rubia, Ortí J. E., Calpe M. A. A. (2017). Differential effects of MDMA and cocaine on inhibitory avoidance and object recognition tests in rodents. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 146 1–11. 10.1016/j.nlm.2017.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Garcia-Rill E., Heister D. S., Ye M., Charlesworth A., Hayar A. (2007). Electrical coupling: novel mechanism for sleep-wake control. Sleep 30 1405–1414. 10.1093/sleep/30.11.1405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gawin F. H. (1991). Cocaine addiction: psychology and neurophysiology. Science 251 1580–1586. 10.1126/science.2011738 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gerrard P., Malcolm R. (2007). Mechanisms of modafinil: a review of current research. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 3 349–364. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ghahremani D. G., Tabibnia G., Monterosso J., Hellemann G., Poldrack R. A., London E. D. (2011). Effect of modafinil on learning and task-related brain activity in methamphetamine-dependent and healthy individuals. Neuropsychopharmacology 36 950–959. 10.1038/npp.2010.233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ghasemzadeh M. B., Vasudevan P., Mueller C. (2009). Locomotor sensitization to cocaine is associated with distinct pattern of glutamate receptor trafficking to the postsynaptic density in prefrontal cortex: early versus late withdrawal effects. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 92 383–392. 10.1016/j.pbb.2008.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Giancola J. B., Bonifazi A., Cao J., Ku T., Haraczy A. J., Lam J., et al. (2020). Structure-activity relationships for a series of (Bis(4-fluorophenyl)methyl)sulfinylethyl-aminopiperidines and -piperidine amines at the dopamine transporter: Bioisosteric replacement of the piperazine improves metabolic stability. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 208:112674. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gold L. H., Balster R. L. (1996). Evaluation of the cocaine-like discriminative stimulus effects and reinforcing effects of modafinil. Psychopharmacology 126 286–292. 10.1007/bf02247379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Golden S. A., Russo S. J. (2012). Mechanisms of psychostimulant-induced structural plasticity. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect. Med. 2:a011957. 10.1101/cshperspect.a011957 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gonçalves J., Baptista S., Martins T., Milhazes N., Borges F., Ribeiro C. F., et al. (2010). Methamphetamine-induced neuroinflammation and neuronal dysfunction in the mice hippocampus: preventive effect of indomethacin. Eur. J. Neurosci. 31 315–326. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.07059.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- González B., Jayanthi S., Gomez N., Torres O. V., Sosa M. H., Bernardi A., et al. (2018). Repeated methamphetamine and modafinil induce differential cognitive effects and specific histone acetylation and DNA methylation profiles in the mouse medial prefrontal cortex. Prog. Neuro Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 82 1–11. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.12.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- González B., Raineri M., Cadet J. L., García-Rill E., Urbano F. J., Bisagno V. (2014). Modafinil improves methamphetamine-induced object recognition deficits and restores prefrontal cortex ERK signaling in mice. Neuropharmacology 87 188–197. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gould T. J. (2010). Addiction and cognition. Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract. 5:4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grilly D. M. (2000). A verification of psychostimulant-induced improvement in sustained attention in rats: effects of d-amphetamine, nicotine, and pemoline. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 8 14–21. 10.1037/1064-1297.8.1.14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haas H. L., Sergeeva O. A., Selbach O. (2008). Histamine in the nervous system. Physiol. Rev. 88 1183–1241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamburg M. A., Collins F. S. (2010). The path to personalized medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 363 301–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Han J., Chen D., Liu D., Zhu Y. (2018). Modafinil attenuates inflammation via inhibiting Akt/NF-kappaB pathway in apoE-deficient mouse model of atherosclerosis. Inflammopharmacology 26 385–393. 10.1007/s10787-017-0387-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hart C. L., Haney M., Vosburg S. K., Rubin E., Foltin R. W. (2008). Smoked cocaine self-administration is decreased by modafinil. Neuropsychopharmacology 33 761–768. 10.1038/sj.npp.1301472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hart C., Ksir C. (1996). Nicotine effects on dopamine clearance in rat nucleus accumbens. J. Neurochem. 66 216–221. 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66010216.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hasler B. P., Smith L. J., Cousins J. C., Bootzin R. R. (2012). Circadian rhythms, sleep, and substance abuse. Sleep Med. Rev. 16 67–81. 10.1016/j.smrv.2011.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hedegaard H., Miniño A. M., Warner M. (2020). Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2018: NCHS Data Brief No 356. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db356.htm [Google Scholar]
- Heinzerling K. G., Swanson A.-N., Kim S., Cederblom L., Moe A., Ling W., et al. (2010). Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 109 20–29. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hermant J.-F., Rambert F. A., Duteil J. (1991). Awakening properties of modafinil: effect on nocturnal activity in monkeys (Macaca mulatta) after acute and repeated administration. Psychopharmacology 103 28–32. 10.1007/bf02244069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hester R., Lee N., Pennay A., Nielsen S., Ferris J. (2010). The effects of modafinil treatment on neuropsychological and attentional bias performance during 7-day inpatient withdrawal from methamphetamine dependence. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 18 489–497. 10.1037/a0021791 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heyer-Osorno R., Juárez J. (2020). Modafinil reduces choice impulsivity while increasing motor activity in preadolescent rats treated prenatally with alcohol. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 194:172936. 10.1016/j.pbb.2020.172936 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Holtz N. A., Lozama A., Prisinzano T. E., Carroll M. E. (2012). Reinstatement of methamphetamine seeking in male and female rats treated with modafinil and allopregnanolone. Drug Alcohol Depend. 120 233–237. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.07.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Howell L. L., Kimmel H. L. (2008). Monoamine transporters and psychostimulant addiction. Biochem. Pharmacol. 75 196–217. 10.1016/j.bcp.2007.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huang Z.-L., Qu W.-M., Li W.-D., Mochizuki T., Eguchi N., Watanabe T., et al. (2001). Arousal effect of orexin a depends on activation of the histaminergic system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 9965–9970. 10.1073/pnas.181330998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ishizuka T., Murakami M., Yamatodani A. (2008). Involvement of central histaminergic systems in modafinil-induced but not methylphenidate-induced increases in locomotor activity in rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 578 209–215. 10.1016/j.ejphar.2007.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ishizuka T., Murotani T., Yamatodani A. (2010). Modanifil activates the histaminergic system through the orexinergic neurons. Neurosci. Lett. 483 193–196. 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ishizuka T., Sakamoto Y., Sakurai T., Yamatodani A. (2003). Modafinil increases histamine release in the anterior hypothalamus of rats. Neurosci. Lett. 339 143–146. 10.1016/s0304-3940(03)00006-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ishizuka T., Yamamoto Y., Yamatodani A. (2002). The effect of orexin-a and-B on the histamine release in the anterior hypothalamus in rats. Neurosci. Lett. 323 93–96. 10.1016/s0304-3940(01)02552-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Itzhak Y., Martin J. L. (2002). Cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in mice: induction, extinction and reinstatement by related psychostimulants. Neuropsychopharmacology 26 130–134. 10.1016/s0893-133x(01)00303-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jasinski D. R. (2000). An evaluation of the abuse potential of modafinil using methylphenidate as a reference. J. Psychopharmacol. 14 53–60. 10.1177/026988110001400107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jones B. E., Harper S. T., Halaris A. E. (1977). Effects of locus coeruleus lesions upon cerebral monoamine content, sleep-wakefulness states and the response to amphetamine in the cat. Brain Res. 124 473–496. 10.1016/0006-8993(77)90948-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jordan C. J., Cao J., Newman A. H., Xi Z. X. (2019). Progress in agonist therapy for substance use disorders: lessons learned from methadone and buprenorphine. Neuropharmacology 158:107609. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.04.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kahlig K. M., Galli A. (2003). Regulation of dopamine transporter function and plasma membrane expression by dopamine, amphetamine, and cocaine. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 479 153–158. 10.1016/j.ejphar.2003.08.065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kahlig K. M., Lute B. J., Wei Y., Loland C. J., Gether U., Javitch J. A., et al. (2006). Regulation of dopamine transporter trafficking by intracellular amphetamine. Mol. Pharmacol. 70 542–548. 10.1124/mol.106.023952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kalechstein A. D., De La Garza I., Richard, Newton T. F. (2010). Modafinil administration improves working memory in methamphetamine-dependent individuals who demonstrate baseline impairment. Am. J. Addict. 19 340–344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kalechstein A., Mahoney J., Yoon J., Bennett R., De La Garza Ii R. (2013). Modafinil, but not escitalopram, improves working memory and sustained attention in long-term, high-dose cocaine users. Neuropharmacology 64 472–478. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.06.064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kalivas P. W. (2009). The glutamate homeostasis hypothesis of addiction. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10 561–572. 10.1038/nrn2515 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kalivas P. W., Duffy P. (1993). Time course of extracellular dopamine and behavioral sensitization to cocaine. I. dopamine axon terminals. J. Neurosci.. 13 266–275. 10.1523/jneurosci.13-01-00266.1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kamien J. B., Bickel W. K., Hughes J. R., Higgins S. T., Smith B. J. (1993). Drug discrimination by humans compared to nonhumans: current status and future directions. Psychopharmacology 111 259–270. 10.1007/bf02244940 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kampman K. M., Lynch K. G., Pettinati H. M., Spratt K., Wierzbicki M. R., Dackis C., et al. (2015). A double blind, placebo controlled trial of modafinil for the treatment of cocaine dependence without co-morbid alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 155 105–110. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.08.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Karila L., Weinstein A., Aubin H. J., Benyamina A., Reynaud M., Batki S. L. (2010). Pharmacological approaches to methamphetamine dependence: a focused review. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 69 578–592. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03639.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kate N., Grover S., Ghormode D. (2012). Dependence on supratherapeutic doses of modafinil: a case report. Prim. Care Companion CNS Disord. 14:CC.11l01333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Katz J. L., Goldberg S. R. (1988). Preclinical assessment of abuse liability of drugs. Agents Actions 23 18–26. 10.1007/bf01967174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kauer J. A., Malenka R. C. (2007). Synaptic plasticity and addiction. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8 844–858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kaye S., Mcketin R., Duflou J., Darke S. (2007). Methamphetamine and cardiovascular pathology: a review of the evidence. Addiction 102 1204–1211. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01874.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Keighron J. D., Giancola J. B., Shaffer R. J., Demarco E. M., Coggiano M. A., Slack R. D., et al. (2019a). Distinct effects of (R)-modafinil and its (R)-and (S)-fluoro-analogs on mesolimbic extracellular dopamine assessed by voltammetry and microdialysis in rats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 50 2045–2053. 10.1111/ejn.14256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Keighron J. D., Quarterman J. C., Cao J., Demarco E. M., Coggiano M. A., Gleaves A., et al. (2019b). Effects of (R)-modafinil and modafinil analogues on dopamine dynamics assessed by voltammetry and microdialysis in the mouse nucleus accumbens shell. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 10 2012–2021. 10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Killgore W. D., Kahn-Greene E. T., Grugle N. L., Killgore D. B., Balkin T. J. (2009). Sustaining executive functions during sleep deprivation: a comparison of caffeine, dextroamphetamine, and modafinil. Sleep 32 205–216. 10.1093/sleep/32.2.205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kjome K. L., Lane S. D., Schmitz J. M., Green C., Ma L., Prasla I., et al. (2010). Relationship between impulsivity and decision making in cocaine dependence. Psychiatry Res. 178 299–304. 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.11.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kohut S. J., Hiranita T., Hong S.-K., Ebbs A. L., Tronci V., Green J., et al. (2014). Preference for distinct functional conformations of the dopamine transporter alters the relationship between subjective effects of cocaine and stimulation of mesolimbic dopamine. Biol. Psychiatry 76 802–809. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.03.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Koob G. F. (1992). Dopamine, addiction and reward. Semin. Neurosci. 4 139–148. 10.1016/1044-5765(92)90012-q [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Koob G. F., Sanna P. P., Bloom F. E. (1998). Neuroscience of addiction. Neuron 21 467–476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kousik S. M., Napier T. C., Carvey P. M. (2012). The effects of psychostimulant drugs on blood brain barrier function and neuroinflammation. Front. Pharmacol. 3:121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Krishnan R., Chary K. V. (2015). A rare case modafinil dependence. J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 6 49–50. 10.4103/0976-500x.149149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kuhar M., Ritz M., Boja J. (1991). The dopamine hypothesis of the reinforcing properties of cocaine. Trends Neurosci. 14 299–302. 10.1016/0166-2236(91)90141-g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kumar R. (2008). Approved and investigational uses of modafinil. Drugs 68 1803–1839. 10.2165/00003495-200868130-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lai Y.-T., Tsai Y.-P. N., Cherng C. G., Ke J.-J., Ho M.-C., Tsai C.-W., et al. (2009). Lipopolysaccharide mitagates methamphetamine-induced striatal dopamine depletion via modulating local TNF-α and dopamine transporter expression. J. Neural. Transm. 116 405–415. 10.1007/s00702-009-0204-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lange R. A., Hillis L. D. (2001). Cardiovascular complications of cocaine use. N. Engl. J. Med. 345 351–358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Laviolette S. R., Van Der Kooy D. (2004). The neurobiology of nicotine addiction: bridging the gap from molecules to behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5 55–65. 10.1038/nrn1298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lazenka M. F., Negus S. S. (2017). Oral modafinil facilitates intracranial self-stimulation in rats: comparison to methylphenidate. Behav. Pharmacol. 28 318–322. 10.1097/fbp.0000000000000288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee N., Pennay A., Hester R., Mcketin R., Nielsen S., Ferris J. (2013). A pilot randomised controlled trial of modafinil during acute methamphetamine withdrawal: feasibility, tolerability and clinical outcomes. Drug Alcohol Rev. 32 88–95. 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00473.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee Y. W., Hennig B., Fiala M., Kim K. S., Toborek M. (2001). Cocaine activates redox-regulated transcription factors and induces TNF-α expression in human brain endothelial cells. Brain Res. 920 125–133. 10.1016/s0006-8993(01)03047-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Little K. Y., Elmer L. W., Zhong H., Scheys J. O., Zhang L. (2002). Cocaine induction of dopamine transporter trafficking to the plasma membrane. Mol. Pharmacol. 61 436–445. 10.1124/mol.61.2.436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu J., Wu R., Li J.-X. (2020). TAAR1 and psychostimulant addiction. Cell Mol. Neurobiol. 40 229–238. 10.1007/s10571-020-00792-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu X., Petit J.-M., Ezan P., Gyger J., Magistretti P., Giaume C. (2013). The psychostimulant modafinil enhances gap junctional communication in cortical astrocytes. Neuropharmacology 75 533–538. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu Y., Le Foll B., Liu Y., Wang X., Lu L. (2008). Conditioned place preference induced by licit drugs: establishment, extinction, and reinstatement. Sci. World J. 8 1228–1245. 10.1100/tsw.2008.154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Loland C. J., Mereu M., Okunola O. M., Cao J., Prisinzano T. E., Mazier S., et al. (2012). R-modafinil (armodafinil): a unique dopamine uptake inhibitor and potential medication for psychostimulant abuse. Biol. Psychiatry 72 405–413. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.03.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luscher C., Malenka R. C. (2011). Drug-evoked synaptic plasticity in addiction: from molecular changes to circuit remodeling. Neuron 69 650–663. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Madras B. K., Xie Z., Lin Z., Jassen A., Panas H., Lynch L., et al. (2006). Modafinil occupies dopamine and norepinephrine transporters in vivo and modulates the transporters and trace amine activity in vitro. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 319 561–569. 10.1124/jpet.106.106583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mahfoud Y., Talih F., Streem D., Budur K. (2009). Sleep disorders in substance abusers: how common are they? Psychiatry 6 38–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mahler S. V., Hensley-Simon M., Tahsili-Fahadan P., Lalumiere R. T., Thomas C., Fallon R. V., et al. (2014). Modafinil attenuates reinstatement of cocaine seeking: role for cystine–glutamate exchange and metabotropic glutamate receptors. Addict. Biol. 19 49–60. 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2012.00506.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mahoney J. J., Jackson B. J., Kalechstein A. D., De La Garza R., Chang L. C., Newton T. F. (2012). Acute modafinil exposure reduces daytime sleepiness in abstinent methamphetamine-dependent volunteers. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 15 1241–1249. 10.1017/s1461145711001805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Makris A. P., Rush C. R., Frederich R. C., Kelly T. H. (2004). Wake-promoting agents with different mechanisms of action: comparison of effects of modafinil and amphetamine on food intake and cardiovascular activity. Appetite 42 185–195. 10.1016/j.appet.2003.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Malcolm R., Swayngim K., Donovan J. L., Devane C. L., Elkashef A., Chiang N., et al. (2006). Modafinil and cocaine interactions. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 32 577–587. 10.1016/b978-0-12-803750-8.00058-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marston H. M., Reid M. E., Lawrence J. A., Olverman H. J., Butcher S. P. (1999). Behavioural analysis of the acute and chronic effects of MDMA treatment in the rat. Psychopharmacology 144 67–76. 10.1007/s002130050978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McElhiney M. C., Rabkin J. G., Rabkin R., Nunes E. V. (2009). Provigil (modafinil) plus cognitive behavioral therapy for methamphetamine use in HIV+ gay men: a pilot study. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 35 34–37. 10.1080/00952990802342907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McGaugh J., Mancino M. J., Feldman Z., Chopra M. P., Gentry W. B., Cargile C., et al. (2009). Open label pilot study of modafinil for methamphetamine dependence. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 29 488–491. 10.1097/jcp.0b013e3181b591e0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meldrum B. S. (2000). Glutamate as a neurotransmitter in the brain: review of physiology and pathology. J. Nutr. 130 1007S–1015S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mereu M., Bonci A., Newman A. H., Tanda G. (2013). The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders. Psychopharmacology 229 415–434. 10.1007/s00213-013-3232-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mereu M., Chun L. E., Prisinzano T. E., Newman A. H., Katz J. L., Tanda G. (2017). The unique psychostimulant profile of (±)-modafinil: investigation of behavioral and neurochemical effects in mice. Eur. J. Neurosci. 45 167–174. 10.1111/ejn.13376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mereu M., Hiranita T., Jordan C. J., Chun L. E., Lopez J. P., Coggiano M. A., et al. (2020). Modafinil potentiates cocaine self-administration by a dopamine-independent mechanism: possible involvement of gap junctions. Neuropsychopharmacology 45 1518–1526. 10.1038/s41386-020-0680-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mereu M., Tronci V., Chun L. E., Thomas A. M., Green J. L., Katz J. L., et al. (2015). Cocaine-induced endocannabinoid release modulates behavioral and neurochemical sensitization in mice. Addict. Biol. 20 91–103. 10.1111/adb.12080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mignot E., Nishino S., Guilleminault C., Dement W. (1994). Modafinil binds to the dopamine uptake carrier site with low affinity. Sleep 17 436–437. 10.1093/sleep/17.5.436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Minzenberg M. J., Carter C. S. (2008). Modafinil: a review of neurochemical actions and effects on cognition. Neuropsychopharmacology 33 1477–1502. 10.1038/sj.npp.1301534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell H. A., Weinshenker D. (2010). Good night and good luck: norepinephrine in sleep pharmacology. Biochem. Pharmacol. 79 801–809. 10.1016/j.bcp.2009.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Monti J. M. (2013). The neurotransmitters of sleep and wake, a physiological reviews series. Sleep Med. Rev. 17 313–315. 10.1016/j.smrv.2013.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moosavi S. M., Yazdani-Charati J., Amini F. (2019). Effects of modafinil on sleep pattern during methamphetamine withdrawal: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Addict. Health 11 165–172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morgan P. T., Angarita G. A., Canavan S., Pittman B., Oberleitner L., Malison R. T., et al. (2016). Modafinil and sleep architecture in an inpatient–outpatient treatment study of cocaine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 160 49–56. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morgan P. T., Pace-Schott E., Pittman B., Stickgold R., Malison R. T. (2010). Normalizing effects of modafinil on sleep in chronic cocaine users. Am. J. Psychiatry 167 331–340. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09050613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morgan P. T., Paliwal P., Malison R. T., Sinha R. (2009). Sex differences in sleep and sleep-dependent learning in abstinent cocaine users. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 93 54–58. 10.1016/j.pbb.2009.04.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morgan R. E., Crowley J. M., Smith R. H., Laroche R. B., Dopheide M. M. (2007). Modafinil improves attention, inhibitory control, and reaction time in healthy, middle-aged rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 86 531–541. 10.1016/j.pbb.2007.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mortensen O. V., Amara S. G. (2003). Dynamic regulation of the dopamine transporter. Eur. J. Pharmacol 479 159–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mueller D., Stewart J. (2000). Cocaine-induced conditioned place preference: reinstatement by priming injections of cocaine after extinction. Behav. Brain Res. 115 39–47. 10.1016/s0166-4328(00)00239-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Müller U., Steffenhagen N., Regenthal R., Bublak P. (2004). Effects of modafinil on working memory processes in humans. Psychopharmacology 177 161–169. 10.1007/s00213-004-1926-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Munzar P., Tanda G., Justinova Z., Goldberg S. R. (2004). Histamine h3 receptor antagonists potentiate methamphetamine self-administration and methamphetamine-induced accumbal dopamine release. Neuropsychopharmacology 29 705–717. 10.1038/sj.npp.1300380 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murillo-Rodríguez E., Haro R., Palomero-Rivero M., Millán-Aldaco D., Drucker-Colín R. (2007). Modafinil enhances extracellular levels of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens and increases wakefulness in rats. Behav. Brain Res. 176 353–357. 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.10.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Myrick H., Malcolm R., Taylor B., Larowe S. (2004). Modafinil: preclinical, clinical, and post-marketing surveillance—a review of abuse liability issues. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry 16 101–109. 10.1080/10401230490453743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Napier T. C., Herrold A. A., De Wit H. (2013). Using conditioned place preference to identify relapse prevention medications. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37 2081–2086. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nath A., Hauser K. F., Wojna V., Booze R. M., Maragos W., Prendergast M., et al. (2002). Molecular basis for interactions of HIV and drugs of abuse. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 31 S62–S69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Negus S. S., Miller L. L. (2014). Intracranial self-stimulation to evaluate abuse potential of drugs. Pharmacol. Rev. 66 869–917. 10.1124/pr.112.007419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nestler E. J. (2005). The neurobiology of cocaine addiction. Sci. Pract. Perspect. 3 4–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Newman A. H., Cao J., Keighron J. D., Jordan C. J., Bi G.-H., Liang Y., et al. (2019). Translating the atypical dopamine uptake inhibitor hypothesis toward therapeutics for treatment of psychostimulant use disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 44 1435–1444. 10.1038/s41386-019-0366-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Newman A. H., Ku T., Jordan C. J., Bonifazi A., Xi Z. X. (2021). New drugs, old targets: tweaking the dopamine system to treat psychostimulant use disorders. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61 609–628. 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-030220-124205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Newman J. L., Negus S. S., Lozama A., Prisinzano T. E., Mello N. K. (2010). Behavioral evaluation of modafinil and the abuse-related effects of cocaine in rhesus monkeys. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 18 395–408. 10.1037/a0021042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen T. L., Tian Y. H., You I. J., Lee S. Y., Jang C. G. (2011). Modafinil-induced conditioned place preference via dopaminergic system in mice. Synapse 65 733–741. 10.1002/syn.20892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nisell M., Nomikos G. G., Svensson T. H. (1994). Systemic nicotine-induced dopamine release in the rat nucleus accumbens is regulated by nicotinic receptors in the ventral tegmental area. Synapse 16 36–44. 10.1002/syn.890160105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nishino S., Mignot E. (1997). Pharmacological aspects of human and canine narcolepsy. Prog. Neurobiol. 52 27–78. 10.1016/s0301-0082(96)00070-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nishino S., Mao J., Sampathkumaran R., Shelton J., Mignot E. (1998). Increased dopaminergic transmission mediates the wake-promoting effects of CNS stimulants. Sleep Res Online 1 49–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nordahl T. E., Salo R., Leamon M. (2003). Neuropsychological effects of chronic methamphetamine use on neurotransmitters and cognition: a review. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 15 317–325. 10.1176/jnp.15.3.317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nuijten M., Blanken P., Van Den Brink W., Hendriks V. (2015). Modafinil in the treatment of crack-cocaine dependence in the Netherlands: results of an open-label randomised controlled feasibility trial. J. Psychopharmacol. 29 678–687. 10.1177/0269881115582151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nuijten M., Blanken P., Van Den Brink W., Goudriaan A. E., Hendriks V. M. (2016). Impulsivity and attentional bias as predictors of modafinil treatment outcome for retention and drug use in crack-cocaine dependent patients: results of a randomised controlled trial. J. Psychopharmacol. 30 616–626. 10.1177/0269881116645268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Okunola-Bakare O. M., Cao J., Kopajtic T., Katz J. L., Loland C. J., Shi L., et al. (2014). Elucidation of structural elements for selectivity across monoamine transporters: novel 2-[(diphenylmethyl)sulfinyl]acetamide (modafinil) analogues. J. Med. Chem. 57 1000–1013. 10.1021/jm401754x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ozturk A., Deveci E. (2014). Drug abuse of modafinil by a cannabis user. Bull. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 24 405–407. 10.5455/bcp.20130624013303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Paterson N. E., Fedolak A., Olivier B., Hanania T., Ghavami A., Caldarone B. (2010). Psychostimulant-like discriminative stimulus and locomotor sensitization properties of the wake-promoting agent modafinil in rodents. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 95 449–456. 10.1016/j.pbb.2010.03.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peacock A., Leung J., Larney S., Colledge S., Hickman M., Rehm J., et al. (2018). Global statistics on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use: 2017 status report. Addiction 113 1905–1926. 10.1111/add.14234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peñaloza R. A., Sarkar U., Claman D. M., Omachi T. A. (2013). Trends in on-label and off-label modafinil use in a nationally representative sample. JAMA Internal Med. 173 704–706. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2807 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pettit H. O., Justice J. B. (1989). Dopamine in the nucleus accumbens during cocaine self-administration as studied by in vivo microdialysis. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 34 899–904. 10.1016/0091-3057(89)90291-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Phillips K. A., Epstein D. H., Preston K. L. (2014). Psychostimulant addiction treatment. Neuropharmacology 87 150–160. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.04.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Picciotto M. R., Zoli M., Rimondini R., Léna C., Marubio L. M., Pich E. M., et al. (1998). Acetylcholine receptors containing the β2 subunit are involved in the reinforcing properties of nicotine. Nature 391 173–177. 10.1038/34413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Piérard C., Liscia P., Valleau M., Drouet I., Chauveau F., Huart B., et al. (2006). Modafinil-induced modulation of working memory and plasma corticosterone in chronically-stressed mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 83 1–8. 10.1016/j.pbb.2005.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pigeau R., Naitoh P., Buguet A., Mccann C., Baranski J., Taylor M., et al. (1995). Modafinil, d-amphetamine and placebo during 64 hours of sustained mental work. I. effects on mood, fatigue, cognitive performance and body temperature. J. Sleep Res. 4 212–228. 10.1111/j.1365-2869.1995.tb00172.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pontieri F. E., Tanda G., Di Chiara G. (1995). Intravenous cocaine, morphine, and amphetamine preferentially increase extracellular dopamine in the “shell” as compared with the “core” of the rat nucleus accumbens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92 12304–12308. 10.1073/pnas.92.26.12304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pontieri F. E., Tanda G., Orzi F., Di Chiara G. (1996). Effects of nicotine on the nucleus accumbens and similarity to those of addictive drugs. Nature 382 255–257. 10.1038/382255a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Porter J. H., Prus A. J., Overton D. A. (2018). Drug discrimination: historical origins, important concepts, and principles. Curr. Top. Behav. Neurosci. 39 3–26. 10.1007/7854_2018_40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Quisenberry A. J., Prisinzano T. E., Baker L. E. (2013). Modafinil alone and in combination with low dose amphetamine does not establish conditioned place preference in male sprague-dawley rats. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 21 252–258. 10.1037/a0031832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Raineri M., Gonzalez B., Goitia B., Garcia-Rill E., Krasnova I. N., Cadet J. L., et al. (2012). Modafinil abrogates methamphetamine-induced neuroinflammation and apoptotic effects in the mouse striatum. PLoS One 7:e46599. 10.1371/journal.pone.0046599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rao Y., Liu Z. W., Borok E., Rabenstein R. L., Shanabrough M., Lu M., et al. (2007). Prolonged wakefulness induces experience-dependent synaptic plasticity in mouse hypocretin/orexin neurons. J. Clin. Invest. 117 4022–4033. 10.1172/jci32829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Redrobe J. P., Bull S., Plath N. (2010). Translational aspects of the novel object recognition task in rats abstinent following sub-chronic treatment with phencyclidine (PCP): effects of modafinil and relevance to cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Front. Psychiatry 1:146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reichel C. M., See R. E. (2010). Modafinil effects on reinstatement of methamphetamine seeking in a rat model of relapse. Psychopharmacology 210 337–346. 10.1007/s00213-010-1828-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reichel C. M., See R. E. (2012). Chronic modafinil effects on drug-seeking following methamphetamine self-administration in rats. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 15 919–929. 10.1017/s1461145711000988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reichel C. M., Gilstrap M. G., Ramsey L. A., See R. E. (2014). Modafinil restores methamphetamine induced object-in-place memory deficits in rats independent of glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor expression. Drug Alcohol Depend. 134 115–122. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.09.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Revel F., Moreau J., Pouzet B., Mory R., Bradaia A., Buchy D., et al. (2013). A new perspective for schizophrenia: TAAR1 agonists reveal antipsychotic-and antidepressant-like activity, improve cognition and control body weight. Mol. Psychiatry 18 543–556. 10.1038/mp.2012.57 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robertson P., Hellriegel E. T. (2003). Clinical pharmacokinetic profile of modafinil. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 42 123–137. 10.2165/00003088-200342020-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robertson P., Decory H. H., Madan A., Parkinson A. (2000). In vitro inhibition and induction of human hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes by modafinil. Drug Metab. Dispos. 28 664–671. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robinson T. E., Kolb B. (2004). Structural plasticity associated with exposure to drugs of abuse. Neuropharmacology 47 33–46. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2004.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rogers J., De Santis S., See R. (2008). Extended methamphetamine self-administration enhances reinstatement of drug seeking and impairs novel object recognition in rats. Psychopharmacology 199 615–624. 10.1007/s00213-008-1187-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rounsaville B. J., Anton S. F., Carroll K., Budde D., Prusoff B. A., Gawin F. (1991). Psychiatric diagnoses of treatment-seeking cocaine abusers. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 48 43–51. 10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810250045005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rowley H. L., Kulkarni R. S., Gosden J., Brammer R. J., Hackett D., Heal D. J. (2014). Differences in the neurochemical and behavioural profiles of lisdexamfetamine methylphenidate and modafinil revealed by simultaneous dual-probe microdialysis and locomotor activity measurements in freely-moving rats. J. Psychopharmacol. 28 254–269. 10.1177/0269881113513850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rush C. R., Kelly T. H., Hays L. R., Baker R., Wooten A. (2002a). Acute behavioral and physiological effects of modafinil in drug abusers. Behav. Pharmacol. 13 105–115. 10.1097/00008877-200203000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rush C. R., Kelly T. H., Hays L. R., Wooten A. F. (2002b). Discriminative-stimulus effects of modafinil in cocaine-trained humans. Drug Alcohol Depend. 67 311–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Russo S. J., Mazei-Robison M. S., Ables J. L., Nestler E. J. (2009). Neurotrophic factors and structural plasticity in addiction. Neuropharmacology 56 73–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sahakian B. J., Morein-Zamir S. (2011). Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement. J. Psychopharmacol. 25 197–204. 10.1177/0269881109106926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sahakian B., Robbins T., Morgan M., Iversen S. (1975). The effects of psychomotor stimulants on stereotypy and locomotor activity in socially-deprived and control rats. Brain Res. 84 195–205. 10.1016/0006-8993(75)90975-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sakurai T. (2007). The neural circuit of orexin (hypocretin): maintaining sleep and wakefulness. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8 171–181. 10.1038/nrn2092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Salamone J. D., Correa M., Mingote S., Weber S. M. (2003). Nucleus accumbens dopamine and the regulation of effort in food-seeking behavior: implications for studies of natural motivation, psychiatry, and drug abuse. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 305 1–8. 10.1124/jpet.102.035063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Salo R., Flower K., Kielstein A., Leamon M. H., Nordahl T. E., Galloway G. P. (2011). Psychiatric comorbidity in methamphetamine dependence. Psychiatry Res. 186 356–361. 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.09.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- SAMHSA (2018). Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA. [Google Scholar]
- Sandoval V., Riddle E. L., Ugarte Y. V., Hanson G. R., Fleckenstein A. E. (2001). Methamphetamine-induced rapid and reversible changes in dopamine transporter function: an in vitro model. J. Neurosci. 21 1413–1419. 10.1523/jneurosci.21-04-01413.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sarnyai Z., Bíró É, Gardi J., Vecsernyés M., Julesz J., Telegdy G. (1995). Brain corticotropin-releasing factor mediates ‘anxiety-like’behavior induced by cocaine withdrawal in rats. Brain Res. 675 89–97. 10.1016/0006-8993(95)00043-p [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Saunders C., Ferrer J. V., Shi L., Chen J., Merrill G., Lamb M. E., et al. (2000). Amphetamine-induced loss of human dopamine transporter activity: an internalization-dependent and cocaine-sensitive mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 6850–6855. 10.1073/pnas.110035297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sawaguchi T., Goldman-Rakic P. S. (1991). D1 dopamine receptors in prefrontal cortex: involvement in working memory. Science 251 947–950. 10.1126/science.1825731 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sawaguchi T., Goldman-Rakic P. S. (1994). The role of D1-dopamine receptor in working memory: local injections of dopamine antagonists into the prefrontal cortex of rhesus monkeys performing an oculomotor delayed-response task. J. Neurophysiol. 71 515–528. 10.1152/jn.1994.71.2.515 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scammell T. E., Estabrooke I. V., Mccarthy M. T., Chemelli R. M., Yanagisawa M., Miller M. S., et al. (2000). Hypothalamic arousal regions are activated during modafinil-induced wakefulness. J. Neurosci. 20 8620–8628. 10.1523/jneurosci.20-22-08620.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schierenbeck T., Riemann D., Berger M., Hornyak M. (2008). Effect of illicit recreational drugs upon sleep: cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana. Sleep Med. Rev. 12 381–389. 10.1016/j.smrv.2007.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schmaal L., Goudriaan A., Joos L., Dom G., Pattij T., Van Den Brink W., et al. (2014). Neural substrates of impulsive decision making modulated by modafinil in alcohol-dependent patients. Psychol. Med. 44 2787–2798. 10.1017/s0033291714000312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schmaal L., Joos L., Koeleman M., Veltman D. J., Van Den Brink W., Goudriaan A. E. (2013). Effects of modafinil on neural correlates of response inhibition in alcohol-dependent patients. Biol. Psychiatry 73 211–218. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.06.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schmitt K. C., Reith M. E. (2011). The atypical stimulant and nootropic modafinil interacts with the dopamine transporter in a different manner than classical cocaine-like inhibitors. PLoS One 6:e25790. 10.1371/journal.pone.0025790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schmitz J. M., Green C. E., Stotts A. L., Lindsay J. A., Rathnayaka N. S., Grabowski J., et al. (2014). A two-phased screening paradigm for evaluating candidate medications for cocaine cessation or relapse prevention: Modafinil, Levodopa–Carbidopa, Naltrexone. Drug Alcohol Depend. 136 100–107. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schnoll R. A., Wileyto E. P., Pinto A., Leone F., Gariti P., Siegel S., et al. (2008). A placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for nicotine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 98 86–93. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.04.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schork N. J. (2015). Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature 520 609–611. 10.1038/520609a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz J. R. (2005). Modafinil: new indications for wake promotion. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 6 115–129. 10.1517/14656566.6.1.115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz M. D., Palmerston J. B., Lee D. L., Hoener M. C., Kilduff T. S. (2018). Deletion of trace amine-associated receptor 1 attenuates behavioral responses to caffeine. Front. Pharmacol. 9:35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shanmugasundaram B., Aher Y. D., Aradska J., Ilic M., Daba Feyissa D., Kalaba P., et al. (2017). R-Modafinil exerts weak effects on spatial memory acquisition and dentate gyrus synaptic plasticity. PLoS One 12:e0179675. 10.1371/journal.pone.0179675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharif S., Guirguis A., Fergus S., Schifano F. (2021). The use and impact of cognitive enhancers among university students: a systematic review. Brain Sci. 11:355. 10.3390/brainsci11030355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shearer J., Darke S., Rodgers C., Slade T., Van Beek I., Lewis J., et al. (2009). A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil (200 mg/day) for methamphetamine dependence. Addiction 104 224–233. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02437.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shuman T., Cai D. J., Sage J. R., Anagnostaras S. G. (2012). Interactions between modafinil and cocaine during the induction of conditioned place preference and locomotor sensitization in mice: implications for addiction. Behav. Brain Res. 235 105–112. 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.07.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shuman T., Wood S. C., Anagnostaras S. G. (2009). Modafinil and memory: effects of modafinil on Morris water maze learning and Pavlovian fear conditioning. Behav. Neurosci. 123 257–266. 10.1037/a0014366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Slack R. D., Ku T. C., Cao J., Giancola J. B., Bonifazi A., Loland C. J., et al. (2020). Structure-activity relationships for a series of (Bis(4-fluorophenyl)methyl)sulfinyl Alkyl Alicyclic Amines at the dopamine transporter: functionalizing the terminal Nitrogen affects affinity, selectivity, and metabolic stability. J. Med. Chem. 63 2343–2357. 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b01188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sofuoglu M., Devito E. E., Waters A. J., Carroll K. M. (2013). Cognitive enhancement as a treatment for drug addictions. Neuropharmacology 64 452–463. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.06.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sofuoglu M., Devito E. E., Waters A. J., Carroll K. M. (2016). Cognitive function as a transdiagnostic treatment target in stimulant use disorders. J. Dual Diagnosis 12 90–106. 10.1080/15504263.2016.1146383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spencer T. J., Madras B. K., Bonab A. A., Dougherty D. D., Clarke A., Mirto T., et al. (2010). A positron emission tomography study examining the dopaminergic activity of armodafinil in adults using [11C] altropane and [11C] raclopride. Biol. Psychiatry 68 964–970. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.08.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stoops W. W., Lile J. A., Fillmore M. T., Glaser P. E., Rush C. R. (2005). Reinforcing effects of modafinil: influence of dose and behavioral demands following drug administration. Psychopharmacology 182 186–193. 10.1007/s00213-005-0044-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sulzer D., Sonders M. S., Poulsen N. W., Galli A. (2005). Mechanisms of neurotransmitter release by amphetamines: a review. Prog. Neurobiol. 75 406–433. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2005.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taber K. H., Black D. N., Porrino L. J., Hurley R. A. (2012). Neuroanatomy of dopamine: reward and addiction. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 24 1–4. 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.24.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tahsili-Fahadan P., Carr G. V., Harris G. C., Aston-Jones G. (2010). Modafinil blocks reinstatement of extinguished opiate-seeking in rats: mediation by a glutamate mechanism. Neuropsychopharmacology 35 2203–2210. 10.1038/npp.2010.94 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tanda G., Hersey M., Hempel B., Xi Z.-X., Newman A. H. (2021). Modafinil and its structural analogs as atypical dopamine uptake inhibitors and potential medications for psychostimulant use disorder. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 56 13–21. 10.1016/j.coph.2020.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tanda G., Newman A. H., Ebbs A. L., Tronci V., Green J. L., Tallarida R. J., et al. (2009). Combinations of cocaine with other dopamine uptake inhibitors: assessment of additivity. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 330 802–809. 10.1124/jpet.109.154302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tanda G., Pontieri F. E., Di Chiara G. (1997a). Cannabinoid and heroin activation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission by a common mu1 opioid receptor mechanism. Science 276 2048–2050. 10.1126/science.276.5321.2048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tanda G., Pontieri F. E., Frau R., Di Chiara G. (1997b). Contribution of blockade of the noradrenaline carrier to the increase of extracellular dopamine in the rat prefrontal cortex by amphetamine and cocaine. Eur. J. Neurosci. 9 2077–2085. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.1997.tb01375.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thomas M., Kalivas P., Shaham Y. (2008). Neuroplasticity in the mesolimbic dopamine system and cocaine addiction. Br. J. Pharmacol. 154 327–342. 10.1038/bjp.2008.77 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Torrens M., Rossi P. (2015). “Mood disorders and addiction,” in Co-occurring Addictive and Psychiatric Disorders, eds Moggi F., Dom G. (Berlin: Springer; ), 103–117. 10.1007/978-3-642-45375-5_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Touret M., Sallanon-Moulin M., Fages C., Roudier V., Didier-Bazes M., Roussel B., et al. (1994). Effects of modafinil-induced wakefulness on glutamine synthetase regulation in the rat brain. Mol. Brain Res. 26 123–128. 10.1016/0169-328x(94)90082-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Trulson M. E. (1985). Simultaneous recording of substantia nigra neurons and voltammetric release of dopamine in the caudate of behaving cats. Brain Res. Bull. 15 221–223. 10.1016/0361-9230(85)90140-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tseng K. Y., O’Donnell P. (2004). Dopamine–glutamate interactions controlling prefrontal cortical pyramidal cell excitability involve multiple signaling mechanisms. J. Neurosci. 24 5131–5139. 10.1523/jneurosci.1021-04.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tseng K. Y., O’Donnell P. (2007). D2 dopamine receptors recruit a GABA component for their attenuation of excitatory synaptic transmission in the adult rat prefrontal cortex. Synapse 61 843–850. 10.1002/syn.20432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tunstall B. J., Ho C. P., Cao J., Vendruscolo J. C., Schmeichel B. E., Slack R. D., et al. (2018). Atypical dopamine transporter inhibitors attenuate compulsive-like methamphetamine self-administration in rats. Neuropharmacology 131 96–103. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.12.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Turner C., Belyavin A., Nicholson A. (2014). Duration of activity and mode of action of modafinil: Studies on sleep and wakefulness in humans. J. Psychopharmacol. 28 643–654. 10.1177/0269881113508173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Turner D. C., Robbins T. W., Clark L., Aron A. R., Dowson J., Sahakian B. J. (2003). Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology 165 260–269. 10.1007/s00213-002-1250-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tzschentke T. M. (2007). Review on CPP: measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addict. Biol. 12 227–462. 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00070.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Urbano F. J., Leznik E., Llinás R. R. (2007). Modafinil enhances thalamocortical activity by increasing neuronal electrotonic coupling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 12554–12559. 10.1073/pnas.0705087104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- US Modafinil in Narcolepsy Multicenter Study Group (1998). Randomized trial of modafinil for the treatment of pathological somnolence in narcolepsy. Ann. Neurol. 43 88–97. 10.1002/ana.410430115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- US Modafinil in Narcolepsy Multicenter Study Group (2000). Randomized trial of modafinil as a treatment for the excessive daytime somnolence of narcolepsy. Neurology 54 1166–1175. 10.1212/wnl.54.5.1166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Valentino R. J., Volkow N. D. (2020). Drugs, sleep, and the addicted brain. Neuropsychopharmacology 45 3–5. 10.1038/s41386-019-0465-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Velázquez-Sánchez C., Santos J. W., Smith K. L., Ferragud A., Sabino V., Cottone P. (2015). Seeking behavior, place conditioning, and resistance to conditioned suppression of feeding in rats intermittently exposed to palatable food. Behav. Neurosci. 129 219–224. 10.1037/bne0000042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Verma V. (2015). Classic studies on the interaction of cocaine and the dopamine transporter. Clin. Psychopharmacol. Neurosci. 13 227–238. 10.9758/cpn.2015.13.3.227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Verrico C. D., Haile C. N., Mahoney J. J., III, Thompson-Lake D. G., Newton T. F., De La Garza, et al. (2014). Treatment with modafinil and escitalopram, alone and in combination, on cocaine-induced effects: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled human laboratory study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 141 72–78. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.05.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vocci F. J., Montoya I. D. (2009). Psychological treatments for stimulant misuse, comparing and contrasting those for amphetamine dependence and those for cocaine dependence. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 22 263–268. 10.1097/yco.0b013e32832a3b44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Volkow N. D., Fowler J. S., Logan J., Alexoff D., Zhu W., Telang F., et al. (2009). Effects of modafinil on dopamine and dopamine transporters in the male human brain: clinical implications. JAMA 301 1148–1154. 10.1001/jama.2009.351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Volkow N. D., Wang G.-J., Fowler J. S., Tomasi D., Telang F. (2011). Addiction: beyond dopamine reward circuitry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 15037–15042. 10.1073/pnas.1010654108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vosburg S. K., Hart C. L., Haney M., Rubin E., Foltin R. W. (2010). Modafinil does not serve as a reinforcer in cocaine abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 106 233–236. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wang X.-F., Bi G.-H., He Y., Yang H.-J., Gao J.-T., Okunola-Bakare O. M., et al. (2015). R-modafinil attenuates nicotine-taking and nicotine-seeking behavior in alcohol-preferring rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 40 1762–1771. 10.1038/npp.2015.24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ward C. P., Harsh J. R., York K. M., Stewart K. L., Mccoy J. G. (2004). Modafinil facilitates performance on a delayed nonmatching to position swim task in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 78 735–741. 10.1016/j.pbb.2004.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Warot D., Corruble E., Payan C., Weil J., Puech A. (1993). Subjective effects of modafinil, a new central adrenergic stimulant in healthy volunteers: a comparison with amphetamine, caffeine and placebo. Eur. Psychiatry 8 201–208. 10.1017/s0924933800002923 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Waters K. A., Burnham K. E., O’connor D., Dawson G. R., Dias R. J. J. O. P. (2005). Assessment of modafinil on attentional processes in a five-choice serial reaction time test in the rat. J. Psychopharmacol. 19 149–158. 10.1177/0269881105048995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Willie J., Renthal W., Chemelli R., Miller M., Scammell T., Yanagisawa M., et al. (2005). Modafinil more effectively induces wakefulness in orexin-null mice than in wild-type littermates. Neuroscience 130 983–995. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wise R. A. (2008). Dopamine and reward: the anhedonia hypothesis 30 years on. Neurotox. Res. 14 169–183. 10.1007/bf03033808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wise R. A., Bozarth M. A. (1987). A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction. Psychol. Rev. 94 469–492. 10.1037/0033-295x.94.4.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wise R. A., Robble M. A. (2020). Dopamine and Addiction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71 79–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wise R. A., Rompre P.-P. (1989). Brain dopamine and reward. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 40 191–225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wisor J. P., Dement W. C., Aimone L., Williams M., Bozyczko-Coyne D. (2006). Armodafinil, the R-enantiomer of modafinil: wake-promoting effects and pharmacokinetic profile in the rat. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 85 492–499. 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.09.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wisor J. P., Nishino S., Sora I., Uhl G. H., Mignot E., Edgar D. M. (2001). Dopaminergic role in stimulant-induced wakefulness. J. Neurosci. 21 1787–1794. 10.1523/jneurosci.21-05-01787.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wong Y. N., Simcoe D., Hartman L. N., Laughton W. B., King S. P., Mccormick G. C., et al. (1999). A double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of modafinil tablets in healthy male volunteers. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 39 30–40. 10.1177/00912709922007534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Woolverton W. L., Johnson K. M. (1992). Neurobiology of cocaine abuse. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 13 193–200. 10.1016/0165-6147(92)90063-c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wuo-Silva R., Fukushiro D. F., Borçoi A. R., Fernandes H. A., Procópio-Souza R., Hollais A. W., et al. (2011). Addictive potential of modafinil and cross-sensitization with cocaine: a pre-clinical study. Addict. Biol. 16 565–579. 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2011.00341.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wuo-Silva R., Fukushiro D. F., Hollais A. W., Santos-Baldaia R., Mári-Kawamoto E., Berro L. F., et al. (2016). Modafinil induces rapid-onset behavioral sensitization and cross-sensitization with cocaine in mice: implications for the addictive potential of modafinil. Front. Pharmacol. 7:420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wuo-Silva R., Fukushiro-Lopes D. F., Fialho B. P., Hollais A. W., Santos-Baldaia R., Marinho E. A., et al. (2019). Participation of dopamine D1 and D2 receptors in the rapid-onset behavioral sensitization to modafinil. Front. Pharmacol. 10:211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xie Z., Miller G. M. (2009). A receptor mechanism for methamphetamine action in dopamine transporter regulation in brain. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 330 316–325. 10.1124/jpet.109.153775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yan W.-W., Yao L.-H., Chen C., Wang H.-X., Li C.-H., Huang J.-N., et al. (2015). Effects of modafinil on behavioral learning and hippocampal synaptic transmission in rats. Int. Neurourol. J. 19 220–227. 10.5213/inj.2015.19.4.220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Young J. W., Geyer M. A. (2010). Action of modafinil—increased motivation via the dopamine transporter inhibition and D1 receptors? Biol. Psychiatry 67 784–787. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.12.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Young J. W., Kooistra K., Geyer M. A. (2011). Dopamine receptor mediation of the exploratory/hyperactivity effects of modafinil. Neuropsychopharmacology 36 1385–1396. 10.1038/npp.2011.23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yu X., Ma Y., Harding E. C., Yustos R., Vyssotski A. L., Franks N. P., et al. (2019). Genetic lesioning of histamine neurons increases sleep–wake fragmentation and reveals their contribution to modafinil-induced wakefulness. Sleep 42:zsz031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zager A., Brandão W. N., Margatho R. O., Peron J. P., Tufik S., Andersen M. L., et al. (2018). The wake-promoting drug Modafinil prevents motor impairment in sickness behavior induced by LPS in mice: role for dopaminergic D1 receptor. Prog. Neuro Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 81 468–476. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zahniser N. R., Sorkin A. (2004). Rapid regulation of the dopamine transporter: role in stimulant addiction? Neuropharmacology 47 80–91. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2004.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zahniser N. R., Sorkin A. (2009). Trafficking of dopamine transporters in psychostimulant actions. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 20 411–417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang H.-Y., Bi G.-H., Yang H.-J., He Y., Xue G., Cao J., et al. (2017). The novel modafinil analog, JJC8-016, as a potential cocaine abuse pharmacotherapeutic. Neuropsychopharmacology 42 1871–1883. 10.1038/npp.2017.41 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang L., Looney D., Taub D., Chang S. L., Way D., Witte M. H., et al. (1998). Cocaine opens the blood-brain barrier to HIV-1 invasion. J. Neurovirol. 4 619–626. 10.3109/13550289809114228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhu J., Reith M. (2008). Role of the dopamine transporter in the action of psychostimulants, nicotine, and other drugs of abuse. CNS Neurol. Disord. Drug Targets 7 393–409. 10.2174/187152708786927877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zolkowska D., Jain R., Rothman R. B., Partilla J. S., Roth B. L., Setola V., et al. (2009). Evidence for the involvement of dopamine transporters in behavioral stimulant effects of modafinil. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 329 738–746. 10.1124/jpet.108.146142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]