Department of Psychiatry , Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Section on Human Psychopharmacology , Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, Maryland.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019 Apr;43(4):597-606. doi: 10.1111/acer.13970. Epub 2019 Feb 28.
Individuals perceive the effects of alcohol differently, and the variation is commonly used in research assessing the risk for developing an alcohol use disorder. Such research is supported by both oral and intravenous (IV) alcohol administration techniques, and any differences attributable to the route employed should be understood. Our objective was to test whether an individual's subjective responses to alcohol are similar when the breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) trajectory resulting from oral administration is matched by IV administration.
We conducted a 2-session, within-subject study in 44 young adult, healthy, nondependent drinkers (22 females and 22 males). In the first session, subjects ingested a dose of alcohol which was individually calculated, on the basis of total body water, to yield a peak BrAC near 80 mg/dl, and the resulting BrAC trajectory was recorded. A few days later, subjects received an IV alcohol infusion rate profile, precomputed to replicate each individual's oral alcohol BrAC trajectory. In both sessions, we assessed 4 subjective responses to alcohol: SEDATION, SIMULATION, INTOXICATION, and HIGH; at baseline and frequently for 4 hours. We compared the individuals' baseline-corrected responses at peak BrAC and at half-peak BrAC on both the ascending and descending limbs. We also computed and compared Pearson-product moment correlations of responses by route of administration, the Mellanby measure of acute adaptation to alcohol, and the area under the entire response curve for each subjective response.
No significant differences in any measure could be attributed to the route of alcohol administration. Eleven of 12 response comparisons were significantly correlated across the routes of alcohol administration, with 9 surviving correction for multiple measures, as did the Mellanby effect and area under the response curve correlations.
The route of alcohol administration has a minimal effect on subjective responses to alcohol when an individual's BrAC exposure profiles are similar.
个体对酒精的影响有不同的感知，这种差异通常用于评估个体发展为酒精使用障碍的风险的研究中。此类研究既支持口服又支持静脉内（IV）酒精给药技术，因此应了解归因于所采用途径的任何差异。我们的目的是测试当口服给药导致的呼气酒精浓度（BrAC）轨迹与 IV 给药相匹配时，个体对酒精的主观反应是否相似。
我们在 44 名年轻成年、健康、无依赖性的饮酒者（22 名女性和 22 名男性）中进行了一项 2 期、自身对照研究。在第 1 期，根据总体水量，每位受试者摄入个体化计算的酒精剂量，使峰值 BrAC 接近 80mg/dl，并记录所得 BrAC 轨迹。几天后，受试者接受了预先计算的 IV 酒精输注速率曲线，以复制每位个体的口服酒精 BrAC 轨迹。在两个阶段中，我们评估了 4 种个体对酒精的主观反应：镇静、模拟、醉酒和高醉感；在基线和 4 小时内频繁评估。我们比较了个体在 BrAC 峰值和半峰值时的基础校正后的反应，在上升和下降支上。我们还计算并比较了两种给药途径的反应的 Pearson 积矩相关、Mellanby 对酒精的急性适应度量以及每个主观反应的整个反应曲线下面积。
没有观察到任何测量指标的显著差异归因于酒精给药途径。12 种反应比较中的 11 种在两种酒精给药途径之间具有显著相关性，9 种在经过多次测量校正后仍然相关，Mellanby 效应和反应曲线下面积的相关性也是如此。
当个体的 BrAC 暴露曲线相似时，酒精给药途径对个体对酒精的主观反应的影响很小。
