Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25209677›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2015

Differentiating the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects of varenicline.

Rachel L Schassburger, Melissa E Levin, Matthew T Weaver, Matthew I Palmatier, Anthony R Caggiula, Eric C Donny, Alan F Sved

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Nicotine addiction: More than just dopamine.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2023
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel L SchassburgerDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh, A210 Langley Hall, 5th and Ruskin Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA.
Melissa E Levin
Matthew T Weaver
Matthew I Palmatier
Anthony R Caggiula
Eric C Donny
Alan F Sved
University of Pittsburgh · USEast Tennessee State University · USMercyhurst University · US

Funding

SELF ADMINISTERED VS NONCONTINGENT NICOTINER01DA010464 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI DONNY, ERIC CHRISTIAN · 1997 to 2012
$3.5M
Nicotine Self-Administration: Tobacco PharmacotherapiesR21DA024801 · NIDA · KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PALMATIER, MATTHEW I · 2008 to 2009
$397k
NIDA NIH HHS DA-10464NIDA NIH HHS DA-24801NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA010464NIDA NIH HHS R21 DA024801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleVarenicline (VAR), a smoking cessation aid that is a partial agonist at nicotinic receptors, mimics the reinforcement-enhancing effects of nicotine. Varenicline, when accompanied by non-drug cues, is self-administered by rats, though it is unclear whether this results from varenicline acting as a primary reinforcer or a reinforcement enhancer of the cues.

objectivesThis study sought to disentangle these two potential actions.

methodsRats were allowed to self-administer intravenous nicotine, saline, or varenicline during 1-h sessions in operant chambers equipped with two levers. Five groups had concurrent access to drug infusions and a moderately reinforcing visual stimulus (VS) for responding on separate levers. Meeting the reinforcement schedule on one lever was reinforced with VAR (0.01, 0.06, 0.1 mg/kg/infusion), nicotine (0.06 mg/kg/infusion), or saline, while meeting the same schedule on the other lever delivered the VS. Additional groups were reinforced for pressing a single "active" lever and received VAR paired with the VS, the VS with response-independent infusions of VAR, or VAR alone (0.1 mg/kg/infusion).

resultsRats readily responded for VAR paired with VS on a single lever. However, when VAR was the only reinforcer contingent on a response, rats did not respond more than for saline.

conclusionsThese findings show that VAR does not serve as a primary reinforcer in rats at doses that increase responding for non-drug reinforcers. These data are consistent with research showing that the primary reinforcing effects of VAR are weak, at best, and that the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing actions of nicotinic drugs are pharmacologically distinct.

Indexed as

AnimalsBenzazepinesConditioning, OperantCuesDose-Response Relationship, DrugMaleNicotineNicotinic AgonistsQuinoxalinesRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyReinforcement, PsychologyReinforcement ScheduleSelf AdministrationSmoking CessationVareniclineBenzazepinesNicotineNicotinic AgonistsQuinoxalinesVarenicline

Identifiers

PMID25209677
PMCPMC4326540
OpenAlexW2060891741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.