Assessment of abuse liability of Tramadol among experienced drug users: Double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial

Mrinmay Das, MBBS, MD; Raka Jain, MSc, PhD, CChem FRSC (UK); Anju Dhawan, MBBS, MD; Amandeep Kaur, MBBS, MD

doi:10.5055/jom.2016.0361

Authors

Mrinmay Das, MBBS, MD
Raka Jain, MSc, PhD, CChem FRSC (UK)
Anju Dhawan, MBBS, MD
Amandeep Kaur, MBBS, MD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.2016.0361

Keywords:

Tramadol, abuse, assessment

Abstract

Background: Tramadol is a widely used opioid analgesic. Different preclinical, clinical, and postmarketing surveillance studies show conflicting results regarding abuse potential of this drug.

Methods: A randomized double-blind complete crossover study was conducted at National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Total subjects were 10, comprising total 120 observations (each subject assessed at baseline, 5, 45, and 240 minutes). Subjects with history of substance abuse were included after detoxification and informed consent. Assessment was done using modified single dose opiate questionnaire, morphine benzedrine group (MBG), pentobarbital chlorpromazine alcohol group (PCAG), and two bipolar visual analogue scales (VAS) after administration of three drugs—Tramadol (100 mg), Buprenorphine (0.6 mg), and Placebo (Normal Saline) intramuscularly, at 5-day interval.

Results: In intra-group analysis, there was statistically significant increase in scores of all four scales from baseline to all three time points after Tramadol and Buprenorphine administration. In inter-group analysis, statistically higher scores were seen for Buprenorphine in comparison to Tramadol at 5, 45, and 240 minutes for MBG scale; the score was significantly higher for Buprenorphine in VAS for pleasurable effect at 45 and 240 minutes, but not at baseline and 5 minutes. There was no significant difference in score at any point of time between Tramadol and Buprenorphine in PCAG scale and VAS for sedative/alertness effect. The scores were statistically insignificant in case of Placebo. All the subjects liked Buprenorphine most and then Tramadol followed by Placebo.

Conclusion: Tramadol has abuse potential (even in therapeutic doses) more than Placebo but less than or comparable to Buprenorphine.

Author Biographies

Mrinmay Das, MBBS, MD

Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India; now with Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, Uttarakhand, India

Raka Jain, MSc, PhD, CChem FRSC (UK)

Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.

Anju Dhawan, MBBS, MD

Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.

Amandeep Kaur, MBBS, MD

Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Government Medical College, Uttarakhand, India

References

UNODC: World Drug Report 2013. Available at https://www.unodc.org/unodc/secured/wdr/wdr2013/World_Drug_Report_2013.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2014.

Roache J: Performance and physiological measures in abuse liability evaluation. Br J Addict. 1991; 86: 1595–1600.

Ali R, Yasini MS, Dashti-Rahmatabadi MH, et al.: Tramadol dependence rate as compared with morphine in rats. W J Med Sci. 2006; 1: 40-43.

Miranda HF, Pinardi G: Antinociception, tolerance, and physical dependence comparison between morphine and tramadol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1998; 61: 357-360.

Ren YH, Zheng JW: Influence of tramadol on morphine discriminative behaviour in rats. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2000; 21: 924-926.

Tzschentke TM, Bruckman W, Friderichs E: Lack of sensitization during place conditioning in rats is consistent with the low abuse potential of tramadol. Neurosci Lett. 2002; 329: 25-28.

Yanagita T: Drug dependence potential of 1-(mmethoxyphenyl)-2-dimethylaminomethyl)-cyclohexan-1-ol hydrochloride (tramadol) tested in monkeys. Arzneimittelfor Schung. 1978; 28: 158-163.

Zhang M, Jing L, Liu Q, et al.: Tramadol induces conditioned place preference in rats: Interactions with morphine and buprenorphine. Neurosci Lett. 2012; 520(1): 87-91.

Adams EH, Breiner S, Cicero TJ, et al.: A comparison of the abuse liability of tramadol, NSAIDs, and hydrocodone in patients with chronic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006; 31: 465-476.

Babalonis S, Lofwall MR, Nuzzo PA, et al.: Abuse liability and reinforcing efficacy of oral tramadol in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013; 129(1-2): 116-124.

Cicero TJ, Inciardi JA, Adams EH, et al.: Rates of abuse of tramadol remain unchanged with the introduction of new branded and generic products: Results of an abuse monitoring system, 1994-2004. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005; 14: 851-859.

Jasinski DR, Preston K, Sullivan JT, et al.: Abuse potential of oral tramadol. In Problems of Drug Dependence, 1992: Proceeding of the 54thAnnual Scientific Meeting. The College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc. NIDA Research Monograph 132. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993: 103. Available at https://archives.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/132.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2016.

Karlsson M, Berggren AC: Efficacy and safety of low-dose transdermal buprenorphine patches (5, 10, and 20 microg/h) versus prolonged-release tramadol tablets (75, 100, 150, and 200 mg) in patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain: A 12-week, randomized, open-label, controlled, parallel-group noninferiority study. Clin Ther. 2009; 31(3): 503-513.

Liu ZM, Zhou WH, Lian Z, et al.: Drug dependence and abuse potential of tramadol. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 1999; 20: 52-54.

Preston KL, Jasinski DR, Testa M: Abuse potential and pharmacological comparison of tramadol and morphine. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1991; 27: 7-17.

Skipper GE, Fletcher C, Judd RR, et al.: Tramadol abuse and dependence among physicians. JAMA. 2004; 292(15): 1818-1819.

Tjäderborn M, Jönsson AK, Ahlner J, et al.: Tramadol dependence: A survey of spontaneously reported cases in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009; 18(12): 1192-1198.

Zacny JP: Profiling the subjective, psychomotor, and physiological effects of tramadol in recreational drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005; 80(2): 273-278.

World Health Organization: The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1993.

Fraser HF, Van Horlyn GD, Martin WR, et al.: Methods for evaluating addiction liability. (a) “attitude” of opiate addicts toward opiate-like drugs, (b) a short-term “direct” addiction test. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1961; 133: 371-387.

Haertzen CA, Hill HE, Belleville RE: Development of the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI): Selection of items that are sensitive to the effects of various drugs. Psychopharmacologia. 1963; 4: 155-166.

Haertzen CA, Hickey JE: Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI): Measurement of euphoria and other drug effects. In Bozarth MA (ed.): Methods of Assessing the Reinforcing Properties of Abused Drugs. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987: 489-524.

Folstein MF, Luria R: Reliability, validity, and clinical application of the Visual Analogue. Mood Scale. Psychol Med. 1973; 3: 479-486.

Comer SD, Zacny JP, Dworkin RH, et al.: Core outcome measures for opioid abuse liability laboratory assessment studies in humans: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2012; 153: 2315-2324.

Turk DC, O'Connor AB, Dworkin RH, et al.: Research design considerations for clinical studies of abuse-deterrent opioid analgesics: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 2012; 153(10): 1997-2008.

Wightman R, Perrone J, Portelli I, et al.: Likeability and abuse liability of commonly prescribed opioids. J Med Toxicol. 2012; 8(4): 335-340.

Jain R: Role of laboratory services. In Lal R (ed.): Substance Abuse Disorder: Manual for Physicians. New Delhi: National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2005: 127-137.

Eggers KA, Power I: Tramadol. Br J Anaesth. 1995; 74: 247-249.

Wallenstein SL, Kaiko RF, Rogers AG, et al.: Crossover trials in clinical analgesic assays: Studies of buprenorphine and morphine. Pharmacotherapy. 1986; 6(5): 228-235.

Jasinski DR: Assessment of the abuse potentiality of morphine- like drugs (methods used in man). In Martin WR (ed.): Drug Addiction I. Morphine, Sedative-Hypnotic and Alcohol Dependence Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Vol 45. Heidelberg: Springer, 1977: 197–258.

Griffiths RR, Bigelow GE, Ator NA: Principles of initial experimental drug abuse liability assessment in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003; 70(3 Suppl): S41-S54.

Carter LP, Griffiths RR: Principles of laboratory assessment of drug abuse liability and implications for clinical development. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009; 105: S14-S25.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Guidance for industry: Assessment of abuse potential of drugs. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 2010.

Warren PM, Taylor JH, Nicholson KE, et al.: Influence of tramadol on the ventilatory response to hypoxia in humans. Br J Anaesth. 2000; 85(2): 211–216.

Mildh LH, Leino KA, Kirvela OA: Effects of tramadol and meperidine on respiration, plasma catecholamine concentrations, and hemodynamics. J Clin Anesth. 1999; 11(4): 310–316.

Ray R: The Extent, Pattern and Trends of Drug Abuse in India: National Survey. New Delhi: Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India & United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Regional Office for South Asia, 2004.

Duke AN, Bigelow GE, Lanier RK, et al.: Discriminative stimulus effects of tramadol in humans. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2011; 338: 255-262.

Howard BG, Akil H: Goodman & Gilman's Manual of Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 11th ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill, 2006.

Bedi NS, Ray R, Jain R, et al.: Abuse liability of Buprenorphine—A study among experienced drug users. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 1998; 42: 95-100.

Preston KL, Bigelow GE, Bickel WK, et al.: Drug discrimination in human postaddicts: Agonist-antagonist opioids. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1989; 250(1): 184-196.

Pickworth WB, Johnson RE, Holicky BA, et al.: Subjective and physiologic effects of intravenous buprenorphine in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1993; 53: 570-576.

Walsh SL, Preston KL, Bigelow GE, et al.: Acute administration of buprenorphine in humans: partial agonist and blockade effects. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1995; 274(1): 361-372.

Walsh SL, Preston KL, Stitzer ML, et al.: Clinical pharmacology of buprenorphine: Ceiling effects at high doses. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1994; 55(5): 569-580.

Jones HE, Bigelow GE, Preston KL: Assessment of opioid partial agonist activity with a three-choice hydromorphone dose-discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999; 289(3): 1350-1361.

Epstein DH, Preston KL, Jasinski DR: Abuse liability, behavioral pharmacology, and physical dependence potential of opioids in humans and laboratory animals: Lessons from tramadol. Biol Psychol. 2006; 73: 90-99.

Arasteh K, Poudevida S, Farré M, et al.: Response patterns of the Spanish version of the 49-item short form of the Addiction Research Center Inventory after the use of sedatives, stimulants, and opioids. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999; 55: 117-125.

Stoops WW, Lofwall MR, Nuzzo PA, et al.: Pharmacodynamic profile of tramadol in humans: Influence of naltrexone pretreatment. Psychopharmacology. 2012; 223(4): 427-438.

Singhal A, Tripathi BM, Pal HR, et al.: Subjective effects of additional doses of buprenorphine in patients on buprenorphine maintenance. Addict Behav. 2007; 32: 320-331.

O'Connor EC, Mead AN: Tramadol acts as a weak reinforce in the rat self-administration model, consistent with its low abuse liability in humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2010; 96: 279–286.

Sprague JE, Leifheit M, Selken J, et al.: In vivo microdialysis and conditioned place preference studies in rats are consistent with abuse potential of tramadol. Synapse. 2002; 43(2): 118-1121.