Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "MDMA" in English language version.
Last modified:
Fig. 7 shows the mean PD effects of MDMA plotted against simultaneous plasma concentrations at the different time points (hysteresis loops). The increases in "any drug effect" (Fig. 7a) and MAP (Fig. 7b) returned to baseline within 6 h when MDMA concentrations were still high. This clockwise hysteresis indicates that a smaller MDMA effect was seen at a given plasma concentration later in time, indicating rapid acute pharmacodynamic tolerance, which was similarly described for cocaine [33]. [...] Figure 7. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationship. MDMA effects are plotted against simultaneous MDMA plasma concentrations (a, b). The time of sampling is noted next to each point in minutes or hours after MDMA administration. The clockwise hysteresis indicates acute tolerance to the effects of MDMA.
In summary, MDMA is a moderate teratogen that could influence cardiac and neuronal differentiation in the ESC model and these results are in concordance with previous in vivo and in vitro models.
MDMA's addictive liability appears to be lower than that of other drugs of abuse....
MDA and MDMA are less reinforcing than amphetamine...
There are no known pharmacological treatments for MDMA addiction.
...the addictive potential of MDMA itself is relatively small.
Animal and human studies demonstrate moderate abuse liability for MDMA, and this effect may be of most concern to those treating substance abuse disorders.
Although MDMA was, in fact, first synthesized at Merck in 1912, it was not tested pharmacologically because it was only an unimportant precursor in a new synthesis for haemostatic substances.
Fig. 7 shows the mean PD effects of MDMA plotted against simultaneous plasma concentrations at the different time points (hysteresis loops). The increases in "any drug effect" (Fig. 7a) and MAP (Fig. 7b) returned to baseline within 6 h when MDMA concentrations were still high. This clockwise hysteresis indicates that a smaller MDMA effect was seen at a given plasma concentration later in time, indicating rapid acute pharmacodynamic tolerance, which was similarly described for cocaine [33]. [...] Figure 7. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationship. MDMA effects are plotted against simultaneous MDMA plasma concentrations (a, b). The time of sampling is noted next to each point in minutes or hours after MDMA administration. The clockwise hysteresis indicates acute tolerance to the effects of MDMA.
In addition, the strong prior expectations that many people have about psychedelics directly contribute to the psychedelic experience and as a consequence it has been suggested that psychedelics may act as a 'super-placebo' (Hartogsohn, 2016). Specifically, strong prior expectations (e.g., that a specific intervention will likely trigger a mystical experience) will increase the likelihood of having e.g., a mystical-type experience (Maij et al., 2019), and this placebo-effect is further boosted by the psychedelic-induced suggestibility.
It is known that some recreational drugs (eg, MDMA or GHB) may hamper the potential to ejaculate or maintain an erection.
In contrast, MDMA produces damage to serotonergic, but not dopaminergic axon terminals in the striatum, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (Battaglia et al., 1987, O'Hearn et al., 1988). The damage associated with Meth and MDMA has been shown to persist for at least 2 years in rodents, non-human primates and humans (Seiden et al., 1988, Woolverton et al., 1989, McCann et al., 1998, Volkow et al., 2001a, McCann et al., 2005)
Given the dose-response relationship between MDMA exposure and SERT reductions and the statistically non-significant SERT binding differences for users with use levels similar to the majority of real-life users, it can be speculated that SERT levels may not be significantly affected for most recreational ecstasy users.
It seems to present a smaller addiction potential than cocaine or methamphetamine.
...approximately 15% of routine MDMA users recently fit the diagnostic criteria for MDMA dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition/DSMIV.
In summary, MDMA is a moderate teratogen that could influence cardiac and neuronal differentiation in the ESC model and these results are in concordance with previous in vivo and in vitro models.
MDMA increased heart rate (HR) by 25 bpm (p<.001), [cardiac output (CO)] by 1.75 L/min (p<0.01) but did not alter [stroke volume (SV)] or [systemic vascular resistance (SVR)]. Compared to MDMA alone the combination of MDMA + prazosin further increased HR by 24 bpm (p<0.001) and CO by 3.3L/min (p<0.02). MDMA increased systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) by 26 mmHg (p<0.001 each); prazosin attenuated MDMA effects on DBP by 9.3 mmHg (p<001) but did not alter SBP. [...] MDMA increases HR, producing elevations in CO. The hypertensive effects of MDMA are not due to elevated peripheral vascular resistance and the blood pressure effects of MDMA are not attenuated by α-adrenergic blockade, suggesting that MDMA may produce CV effects through non-α-adrenergic mechanisms.
β-Keto-analogue cathinones also exhibited approximately 10-fold lower affinity for the TA1 receptor compared with their respective non-β-keto amphetamines. [...] Activation of TA1 receptors negatively modulates dopaminergic neurotransmission. Importantly, methamphetamine decreased DAT surface expression via a TA1 receptor-mediated mechanism and thereby reduced the presence of its own pharmacological target (Xie and Miller, 2009). MDMA and amphetamine have been shown to produce enhanced DA and 5-HT release and locomotor activity in TA1 receptor knockout mice compared with wild-type mice (Lindemann et al., 2008; Di Cara et al., 2011). Because methamphetamine and MDMA auto-inhibit their neurochemical and functional effects via TA1 receptors, low affinity for these receptors may result in stronger effects on monoamine systems by cathinones compared with the classic amphetamines.
Receptor-mediated actions of amphetamine and other amphetamine derivatives [...] may involve trace amine-associated receptors (TAARs) at which amphetamine and MDMA also have significant potency.85–87 Many stimulants have potency at the rat TAAR1 in the micromolar range but tend to be about 5 to 10 times less potent at the human TAAR1, [...] Activation of the TAAR1 receptor causes inhibition of dopaminergic transmission in the mesocorticolimbic system, and TAAR1 agonists attenuated psychostimulant abuse-related behaviors.89 It is likely that TAARs contribute to the actions of specific stimulants to modulate dopaminergic, serotonergic, and glutamate signaling,90 and drugs acting on the TAAR1 may have therapeutic potential.91 In the periphery, stimulants such as MDMA and cathinone produce vasoconstriction, part of which may involve TAARs, although only relatively high concentrations produced vascular contractions resistant to a cocktail of monoamine antagonist drugs.86
Unlike structurally related psychostimulants such as amphetamine and methamphetamine (Figure 1), which primarily release noradrenaline and dopamine over 5-HT via an identical mechanism, MDMA preferentially releases 5-HT and noradrenaline (Rothman et al., 2001) (Table 1). However, the selectivity by which MDMA releases monoamines is species-dependent. For example, in rat brain synaptosomes, MDMA preferentially releases 5-HT with modest selectivity (<10-fold) over noradrenaline and dopamine (Rothman et al., 2001; Setola et al., 2003). In contrast, studies using cloned human transporters in heterologous cells indicate that MDMA preferentially inhibits the release of noradrenaline with modest selectivity over 5-HT and dopamine (Han & Gu, 2006; Verrico et al., 2007). These species differences are most prominent for SERT, as MDMA more potently inhibits rodent over human SERT, with no species differences at NET and DAT (Han & Gu, 2006).
Interestingly, the concentrations of amphetamine found to be necessary to activate TAAR1 are in line with what was found in drug abusers [3, 51, 52]. Thus, it is likely that some of the effects produced by amphetamines could be mediated by TAAR1. Indeed, in a study in mice, MDMA effects were found to be mediated in part by TAAR1, in a sense that MDMA auto-inhibits its neurochemical and functional actions [46]. Based on this and other studies (see other section), it has been suggested that TAAR1 could play a role in reward mechanisms and that amphetamine activity on TAAR1 counteracts their known behavioral and neurochemical effects mediated via dopamine neurotransmission.
Another feature that distinguishes [synthetic cathinones (SCs)] from amphetamines is their negligible interaction with the trace amine associated receptor 1 (TAAR1). Activation of this receptor reduces the activity of dopaminergic neurones, thereby reducing psychostimulatory effects and addictive potential (Miller, 2011; Simmler et al., 2016). Amphetamines are potent agonists of this receptor, making them likely to self‐inhibit their stimulating effects. In contrast, SCs show negligible activity towards TAAR1 (Kolaczynska et al., 2021; Rickli et al., 2015; Simmler et al., 2014, 2016). [...] It is worth noting, however, that for TAAR1 there is considerable species variability in its interaction with ligands, and it is possible that the in vitro activity of [rodent TAAR1 agonists] may not translate into activity in the human body (Simmler et al., 2016). The lack of self‐regulation by TAAR1 may partly explain the higher addictive potential of SCs compared to amphetamines (Miller, 2011; Simmler et al., 2013).
A recent study used 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) as a pharmacological provocation agent (196, 197). A single 100-mg dose of MDMA led to an 8-fold increase in plasma OXT in healthy individuals, but elicited no OXT increase in patients with AVP deficiency (197). Correspondingly, controls experienced characteristic psychoactive effects such as empathy, trust, openness, and reduced anxiety, whereas patients displayed blunted or absent responses, both emotionally and physiologically.
It is postulated that MDMA-induced neuronal apoptosis arises from directly stimulating the 5HT2A receptor. However, it is unclear whether MDMA binds here directly or whether one of its active metabolites (for example, MDA exhibits a 5-HT2A affinity almost 10-fold better than MDMA) is responsible.70,80,81 In addition, R-MDMA more potently activates 5-HT2A second messenger signaling, with S-MDMA having a minimal effect and racemic MDMA acting as a weak partial agonist.
Determining the role of specific 5-HT receptors in MDMA's effects in vivo is complicated by the presence of 14 different 5-HT receptor subtypes (Barnes and Sharp, 1999; Hoyer et al., 2002), many of which affect DA function (Alex and Pehek, 2007; Bubar and Cunningham, 2006). Nonetheless, there is general agreement that 5-HT1B, 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptor subtypes influence locomotor effects of MDMA. Hyperactivity produced by MDMA is mimicked by administration of the 5-HT1B agonist RU-24969 (Rempel et al., 1993), and 5-HT1B antagonists inhibit MDMA-induced ambulation (Callaway and Geyer, 1992b; Fletcher et al., 2002; McCreary et al., 1999). 5-HT2A antagonists reduce ambulation produced by MDMA (Fletcher et al., 2002; Kehne et al., 1996), whereas 5-HT2C antagonists markedly enhance it (Bankson and Cunningham, 2002; Fletcher et al., 2006). Taken together, these data reveal that 5-HT1B and 5-HT2A receptors facilitate, while 5-HT2C receptors suppress, forward locomotion evoked by MDMA administration. Importantly, the neural circuits underlying serotonergic modulation of MDMA-induced activity are largely unexplored.
[...] 5-HT1B receptor agonists elicit locomotor hyperactivity similar to MDMA [247] and transgenic mice lacking the SERT or 5-HT1B receptor show no or reduced MDMA-induced locomotion and a behavioural pattern qualitatively reminiscent of other amphetamines [262,27]. Prior 5-HT depletion or pre-treatment of animals with SSRIs or 5-HT1B receptor antagonists block low dose MDMA hyperkinesis [42,44]. Activation of this receptor subtype may be fundamental in defining MDMAspecific locomotor activity. The 5-HT2A antagonist MDL 100,907 blocked high dose (20 mg/kg) but not low dose (3 mg/kg) MDMA-induced locomotion [157].5-HT2C receptor antagonists potentiated locomotor activation after low dose MDMA [20,115]. It has been proposed that unmasking of 5-HT1B receptor-mediated hyperactivity via 5-HT2C antagonism is only possible in the presence of the elevated DA and 5-HT concentrations seen after MDMA [19].
Here we show that acute pharmacological inhibition or genetic ablation of the 5-HT2B receptor in mice completely abolishes MDMA-induced hyperlocomotion and 5-HT release in nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area. Furthermore, the 5-HT2B receptor dependence of MDMA-stimulated release of endogenous 5-HT from superfused midbrain synaptosomes suggests that 5-HT2B receptors act, unlike any other 5-HT receptor, presynaptically to affect MDMA-stimulated 5-HT release.
MDMA is also a low-potency partial agonist of the 5-HT2A receptor. Although not frequent, mild hallucinogen-like effects of MDMA have been reported, which may be attributable to 5-HT2A agonism (Nichols 2004; Liechti et al. 2000). MDA, the active metabolite of MDMA (Hysek et al. 2011), shows a tenfold higher potency for 5-HT2A agonism than MDMA (Rickli et al. 2015c). MDA likely contributes to the mode of action of MDMA and might contribute to the mild hallucinogenic effects of MDMA.
Although the most active tryptamine hallucinogens are N,N-dialkylated, the phenethylamines generally cannot tolerate even a single N-substitution. Even small groups such as methyl or ethyl (see Table 2) abolish their hallucinogenic activity.
[MDxx] have been assessed in head twitch studies. Racemic [MDA] and S-(+)-MDA reportedly induce WDS in monkeys and rats, respectively (Schlemmer and Davis 1986; Hiramatsu et al. 1989). Although [MDMA] does not induce the HTR in mice, both of the stereoisomers of MDMA have been shown to elicit the response (Fantegrossi et al. 2004, 2005b). 5-HT depletion inhibits the response to S-(+)-MDMA but does not alter the response to R-(−)-MDMA, suggesting the isomers act through different mechanisms (Fantegrossi et al. 2005b). This suggestion is consistent with the fact that S-(+)- and R-(−)-MDMA exhibit qualitatively distinct pharmacological profiles, with the S-(+)isomer working primarily as a monoamine releaser (Johnson et al. 1986; Baumann et al. 2008; Murnane et al. 2010) and the R-(−)-enantiomer acting directly through 5-HT2A receptors (Lyon et al. 1986; Nash et al. 1994). In contrast to their effects in mice, Hiramatsu reported that S-(+)- and R-(−)-MDMA fail to produce WDS in rats (Hiramatsu et al. 1989). The discrepant findings with MDMA in mice and rats may reflect species differences in sensitivity to the HTR (see below for further discussion).
[...] Both [MDMA and MDA] bind to the human 5-HT2B receptor, although with a 5-fold lower Ki value for MDA compared to MDMA (Ray, 2010; Setola et al., 2003). Both compounds were agonists in an assay of PI hydrolysis, with MDA (EC50=190nM) 10-fold more potent than MDMA (EC50=2000 nM) in addition to greater intrinsic efficacy (90% vs 32%) (Setola et al., 2003). [...] A 50mg dose of MDMA resulted in a mean plasma Cmax 266nM for MDMA and 28.5nM for MDA (de la Torre et al., 2000).
Notably, in a study by Rickli and colleagues, MDMA did not activate the 5-HT2B receptor in the functional assay at investigated concentrations (EC50 > 20 μM); however, [MDA], the main psychoactive N-demethylated phase I metabolite of MDMA, potently activated the receptor at submicromolar concentrations [14]. This suggests that the metabolite MDA rather than MDMA itself may lead to valvulopathy and that there could be a significant metabolic contribution to MDMA-induced effects and adverse effect.
A controlled study on eight experienced MDMA users reported that 1.5 mg/kg (comparable to what was deemed a typical dosage amount) consumed orally resulted in the subjective effects peaking within 2 h of ingestion (Harris et al., 2002). Other research indicates effects to emerge between 20 and 60 min, with them peaking between 60 and 90 min and lasting up to 5 h (Green et al., 2003). A dose of 100 mg has a half-life of 8–9h(De la Torre et al., 2004), although as mentioned above, users are unaware of the dose they ingest.
Metabolism does not appear to be altered by chronic exposure, thus dose escalation appears to arise from pharmacodynamic rather than pharmacokinetic tolerance [24]. [...] The terminal plasma half-life of methamphetamine of approximately 10 hours is similar across administration routes, but with substantial inter-individual variability. Acute effects persist for up to 8 hours following a single moderate dose of 30 mg [30]. [...] peak plasma methamphetamine concentration occurs after 4 hours [35]. Nevertheless, peak cardiovascular and subjective effects occur rapidly (within 5–15 minutes). The dissociation between peak plasma concentration and clinical effects indicates acute tolerance, which may reflect rapid molecular processes such as redistribution of vesicular monoamines and internalization of monoamine receptors and transporters [6,36]. Acute subjective effects diminish over 4 hours, while cardiovascular effects tend to remain elevated. This is important, as the marked acute tachyphylaxis to subjective effects may drive repeated use within intervals of 4 hours, while cardiovascular risks may increase [11,35].
For several decades, clinical benefits of amphetamines have been limited by the pharmacologic half-life of around 4 hours. Although higher doses can produce higher maximum concentrations, they do not affect the half-life of the dose. Therefore, to achieve longer durations of effect, stimulants had to be dosed at least twice daily. Further, these immediate-release doses were found to have their greatest effect shortly after administration, with a rapid decline in effect after reaching peak blood concentrations. The clinical correlation of this was found in comparing math problems attempted and solved between a mixed amphetamine salts preparation (MAS) 10 mg once at 8 am vs 8 am followed by 12 pm [14]. The study also demonstrated the phenomenon of acute tolerance, where even if blood concentrations were maintained over the course of the day, clinical efficacy in the form of math problems attempted and solved would diminish over the course of the day. These findings eventually led to the development of a once daily preparation (MAS XR) [15], which is a composition of 50% immediate-release beads and 50% delayed release beads intended to mimic this twice-daily dosing with only a single administration.
Acute tolerance has been demonstrated for methamphetamine in rats (Segal and Kuczenski, 2006), and for D-amphetamine in rats (Lewander, 1971), [non-human primates (NHPs)] (Jedema et al., 2014) and humans (Angrist et al., 1987; Brauer et al., 1996; Dolder et al., 2017). In vivo measurement of dopamine by microdialysis was used in rats and NHPs to evaluate these time-dependent effects. In humans, various subjective measures of mood related to the drug's euphoric effects were observed to decline more rapidly than plasma concentrations following D-amphetamine oral doses ranging from 20 to 40 mg (Angrist et al., 1987; Brauer et al., 1996; Dolder et al., 2017). Whereas peak plasma concentrations and subjective effects occurred between 2 and 4 hours following administration, drug effect measures had largely returned to baseline values by 8 hours despite continued exposure to the drug (mean half-life=8 hours following a 40 mg dose (Dolder et al., 2017)).
Injections of large doses of MDMA cause massive release of 5-HT from presynaptic vesicles, followed by a rapid decrease in 5-HT and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) levels and decreased TPH activity (Górska et al., 2018; Lyles & Cadet, 2003). There do not appear to be losses of 5-HT uptake sites at early time points after MDMA administration (Lyles & Cadet, 2003). [...] MDMA also perturbs the function of SERT (Green et al., 2003), a marker of the integrity of serotonin neurons (Blakely et al., 1994). By virtue of its moderating synaptic 5-HT levels, SERT is crucial for the process of 5-HT neurotransmission (Green et al., 2003). MDMA downregulates SERT function without altering SERT mRNA or protein expression, and this rapid downregulation is sustained for at least 90 min and is dose-dependent (Kivell et al., 2010).
Our results show that exposure to the SSRIs citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline and paroxetine all induced SERT internalization, but with different efficacies. The substrates 5-HT and MDMA also induced SERT internalization, while cocaine elevated SERT cell surface expression.
Finally, since R-MDMA is known to partially substitute for LSD in animal models we decided to test both compounds in the head twitch response assay (HTR) (FIG 3.3C).3 The HTR is a well-validated mouse model for predicting the hallucinogenic potential of test drugs. Serotonergic psychedelics will cause a rapid back and forth head movement in mice. The potency measured in the HTR assay has been shown to correlate very well with the human potencies of psychedelics.18 Neither R-MDMA or [...] produced any head twitches at all doses tested, suggesting that neither has high hallucinogenic potential.
In addition, the strong prior expectations that many people have about psychedelics directly contribute to the psychedelic experience and as a consequence it has been suggested that psychedelics may act as a 'super-placebo' (Hartogsohn, 2016). Specifically, strong prior expectations (e.g., that a specific intervention will likely trigger a mystical experience) will increase the likelihood of having e.g., a mystical-type experience (Maij et al., 2019), and this placebo-effect is further boosted by the psychedelic-induced suggestibility.
[MDA] is also remarkable because the N-methyl homolog 3,4 (MDMA) has biological activity, although the nature of its action places it outside of this review. No other phenethylamine hallucinogen retains central activity on N-methylation.
Why is it called Molly? That's short for "molecule." "You can put a ribbon and bow on it and call it a cute name like 'Molly' and people are all in," said Paul Doering, professor emeritus of pharmacology at the University of Florida.
Although the most active tryptamine hallucinogens are N,N-dialkylated, the phenethylamines generally cannot tolerate even a single N-substitution. Even small groups such as methyl or ethyl (see Table 2) abolish their hallucinogenic activity.
...the addictive potential of MDMA itself is relatively small.
Animal and human studies demonstrate moderate abuse liability for MDMA, and this effect may be of most concern to those treating substance abuse disorders.
Although MDMA was, in fact, first synthesized at Merck in 1912, it was not tested pharmacologically because it was only an unimportant precursor in a new synthesis for haemostatic substances.
Fig. 7 shows the mean PD effects of MDMA plotted against simultaneous plasma concentrations at the different time points (hysteresis loops). The increases in "any drug effect" (Fig. 7a) and MAP (Fig. 7b) returned to baseline within 6 h when MDMA concentrations were still high. This clockwise hysteresis indicates that a smaller MDMA effect was seen at a given plasma concentration later in time, indicating rapid acute pharmacodynamic tolerance, which was similarly described for cocaine [33]. [...] Figure 7. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationship. MDMA effects are plotted against simultaneous MDMA plasma concentrations (a, b). The time of sampling is noted next to each point in minutes or hours after MDMA administration. The clockwise hysteresis indicates acute tolerance to the effects of MDMA.
In addition, the strong prior expectations that many people have about psychedelics directly contribute to the psychedelic experience and as a consequence it has been suggested that psychedelics may act as a 'super-placebo' (Hartogsohn, 2016). Specifically, strong prior expectations (e.g., that a specific intervention will likely trigger a mystical experience) will increase the likelihood of having e.g., a mystical-type experience (Maij et al., 2019), and this placebo-effect is further boosted by the psychedelic-induced suggestibility.
It is known that some recreational drugs (eg, MDMA or GHB) may hamper the potential to ejaculate or maintain an erection.
In contrast, MDMA produces damage to serotonergic, but not dopaminergic axon terminals in the striatum, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (Battaglia et al., 1987, O'Hearn et al., 1988). The damage associated with Meth and MDMA has been shown to persist for at least 2 years in rodents, non-human primates and humans (Seiden et al., 1988, Woolverton et al., 1989, McCann et al., 1998, Volkow et al., 2001a, McCann et al., 2005)
Given the dose-response relationship between MDMA exposure and SERT reductions and the statistically non-significant SERT binding differences for users with use levels similar to the majority of real-life users, it can be speculated that SERT levels may not be significantly affected for most recreational ecstasy users.
It seems to present a smaller addiction potential than cocaine or methamphetamine.
...approximately 15% of routine MDMA users recently fit the diagnostic criteria for MDMA dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition/DSMIV.
In summary, MDMA is a moderate teratogen that could influence cardiac and neuronal differentiation in the ESC model and these results are in concordance with previous in vivo and in vitro models.
β-Keto-analogue cathinones also exhibited approximately 10-fold lower affinity for the TA1 receptor compared with their respective non-β-keto amphetamines. [...] Activation of TA1 receptors negatively modulates dopaminergic neurotransmission. Importantly, methamphetamine decreased DAT surface expression via a TA1 receptor-mediated mechanism and thereby reduced the presence of its own pharmacological target (Xie and Miller, 2009). MDMA and amphetamine have been shown to produce enhanced DA and 5-HT release and locomotor activity in TA1 receptor knockout mice compared with wild-type mice (Lindemann et al., 2008; Di Cara et al., 2011). Because methamphetamine and MDMA auto-inhibit their neurochemical and functional effects via TA1 receptors, low affinity for these receptors may result in stronger effects on monoamine systems by cathinones compared with the classic amphetamines.
Receptor-mediated actions of amphetamine and other amphetamine derivatives [...] may involve trace amine-associated receptors (TAARs) at which amphetamine and MDMA also have significant potency.85–87 Many stimulants have potency at the rat TAAR1 in the micromolar range but tend to be about 5 to 10 times less potent at the human TAAR1, [...] Activation of the TAAR1 receptor causes inhibition of dopaminergic transmission in the mesocorticolimbic system, and TAAR1 agonists attenuated psychostimulant abuse-related behaviors.89 It is likely that TAARs contribute to the actions of specific stimulants to modulate dopaminergic, serotonergic, and glutamate signaling,90 and drugs acting on the TAAR1 may have therapeutic potential.91 In the periphery, stimulants such as MDMA and cathinone produce vasoconstriction, part of which may involve TAARs, although only relatively high concentrations produced vascular contractions resistant to a cocktail of monoamine antagonist drugs.86
Unlike structurally related psychostimulants such as amphetamine and methamphetamine (Figure 1), which primarily release noradrenaline and dopamine over 5-HT via an identical mechanism, MDMA preferentially releases 5-HT and noradrenaline (Rothman et al., 2001) (Table 1). However, the selectivity by which MDMA releases monoamines is species-dependent. For example, in rat brain synaptosomes, MDMA preferentially releases 5-HT with modest selectivity (<10-fold) over noradrenaline and dopamine (Rothman et al., 2001; Setola et al., 2003). In contrast, studies using cloned human transporters in heterologous cells indicate that MDMA preferentially inhibits the release of noradrenaline with modest selectivity over 5-HT and dopamine (Han & Gu, 2006; Verrico et al., 2007). These species differences are most prominent for SERT, as MDMA more potently inhibits rodent over human SERT, with no species differences at NET and DAT (Han & Gu, 2006).
Another feature that distinguishes [synthetic cathinones (SCs)] from amphetamines is their negligible interaction with the trace amine associated receptor 1 (TAAR1). Activation of this receptor reduces the activity of dopaminergic neurones, thereby reducing psychostimulatory effects and addictive potential (Miller, 2011; Simmler et al., 2016). Amphetamines are potent agonists of this receptor, making them likely to self‐inhibit their stimulating effects. In contrast, SCs show negligible activity towards TAAR1 (Kolaczynska et al., 2021; Rickli et al., 2015; Simmler et al., 2014, 2016). [...] It is worth noting, however, that for TAAR1 there is considerable species variability in its interaction with ligands, and it is possible that the in vitro activity of [rodent TAAR1 agonists] may not translate into activity in the human body (Simmler et al., 2016). The lack of self‐regulation by TAAR1 may partly explain the higher addictive potential of SCs compared to amphetamines (Miller, 2011; Simmler et al., 2013).
A recent study used 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) as a pharmacological provocation agent (196, 197). A single 100-mg dose of MDMA led to an 8-fold increase in plasma OXT in healthy individuals, but elicited no OXT increase in patients with AVP deficiency (197). Correspondingly, controls experienced characteristic psychoactive effects such as empathy, trust, openness, and reduced anxiety, whereas patients displayed blunted or absent responses, both emotionally and physiologically.
It is postulated that MDMA-induced neuronal apoptosis arises from directly stimulating the 5HT2A receptor. However, it is unclear whether MDMA binds here directly or whether one of its active metabolites (for example, MDA exhibits a 5-HT2A affinity almost 10-fold better than MDMA) is responsible.70,80,81 In addition, R-MDMA more potently activates 5-HT2A second messenger signaling, with S-MDMA having a minimal effect and racemic MDMA acting as a weak partial agonist.
Determining the role of specific 5-HT receptors in MDMA's effects in vivo is complicated by the presence of 14 different 5-HT receptor subtypes (Barnes and Sharp, 1999; Hoyer et al., 2002), many of which affect DA function (Alex and Pehek, 2007; Bubar and Cunningham, 2006). Nonetheless, there is general agreement that 5-HT1B, 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptor subtypes influence locomotor effects of MDMA. Hyperactivity produced by MDMA is mimicked by administration of the 5-HT1B agonist RU-24969 (Rempel et al., 1993), and 5-HT1B antagonists inhibit MDMA-induced ambulation (Callaway and Geyer, 1992b; Fletcher et al., 2002; McCreary et al., 1999). 5-HT2A antagonists reduce ambulation produced by MDMA (Fletcher et al., 2002; Kehne et al., 1996), whereas 5-HT2C antagonists markedly enhance it (Bankson and Cunningham, 2002; Fletcher et al., 2006). Taken together, these data reveal that 5-HT1B and 5-HT2A receptors facilitate, while 5-HT2C receptors suppress, forward locomotion evoked by MDMA administration. Importantly, the neural circuits underlying serotonergic modulation of MDMA-induced activity are largely unexplored.
[...] 5-HT1B receptor agonists elicit locomotor hyperactivity similar to MDMA [247] and transgenic mice lacking the SERT or 5-HT1B receptor show no or reduced MDMA-induced locomotion and a behavioural pattern qualitatively reminiscent of other amphetamines [262,27]. Prior 5-HT depletion or pre-treatment of animals with SSRIs or 5-HT1B receptor antagonists block low dose MDMA hyperkinesis [42,44]. Activation of this receptor subtype may be fundamental in defining MDMAspecific locomotor activity. The 5-HT2A antagonist MDL 100,907 blocked high dose (20 mg/kg) but not low dose (3 mg/kg) MDMA-induced locomotion [157].5-HT2C receptor antagonists potentiated locomotor activation after low dose MDMA [20,115]. It has been proposed that unmasking of 5-HT1B receptor-mediated hyperactivity via 5-HT2C antagonism is only possible in the presence of the elevated DA and 5-HT concentrations seen after MDMA [19].
Here we show that acute pharmacological inhibition or genetic ablation of the 5-HT2B receptor in mice completely abolishes MDMA-induced hyperlocomotion and 5-HT release in nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area. Furthermore, the 5-HT2B receptor dependence of MDMA-stimulated release of endogenous 5-HT from superfused midbrain synaptosomes suggests that 5-HT2B receptors act, unlike any other 5-HT receptor, presynaptically to affect MDMA-stimulated 5-HT release.
MDMA is also a low-potency partial agonist of the 5-HT2A receptor. Although not frequent, mild hallucinogen-like effects of MDMA have been reported, which may be attributable to 5-HT2A agonism (Nichols 2004; Liechti et al. 2000). MDA, the active metabolite of MDMA (Hysek et al. 2011), shows a tenfold higher potency for 5-HT2A agonism than MDMA (Rickli et al. 2015c). MDA likely contributes to the mode of action of MDMA and might contribute to the mild hallucinogenic effects of MDMA.
Although the most active tryptamine hallucinogens are N,N-dialkylated, the phenethylamines generally cannot tolerate even a single N-substitution. Even small groups such as methyl or ethyl (see Table 2) abolish their hallucinogenic activity.
[MDA] is also remarkable because the N-methyl homolog 3,4 (MDMA) has biological activity, although the nature of its action places it outside of this review. No other phenethylamine hallucinogen retains central activity on N-methylation.
[MDxx] have been assessed in head twitch studies. Racemic [MDA] and S-(+)-MDA reportedly induce WDS in monkeys and rats, respectively (Schlemmer and Davis 1986; Hiramatsu et al. 1989). Although [MDMA] does not induce the HTR in mice, both of the stereoisomers of MDMA have been shown to elicit the response (Fantegrossi et al. 2004, 2005b). 5-HT depletion inhibits the response to S-(+)-MDMA but does not alter the response to R-(−)-MDMA, suggesting the isomers act through different mechanisms (Fantegrossi et al. 2005b). This suggestion is consistent with the fact that S-(+)- and R-(−)-MDMA exhibit qualitatively distinct pharmacological profiles, with the S-(+)isomer working primarily as a monoamine releaser (Johnson et al. 1986; Baumann et al. 2008; Murnane et al. 2010) and the R-(−)-enantiomer acting directly through 5-HT2A receptors (Lyon et al. 1986; Nash et al. 1994). In contrast to their effects in mice, Hiramatsu reported that S-(+)- and R-(−)-MDMA fail to produce WDS in rats (Hiramatsu et al. 1989). The discrepant findings with MDMA in mice and rats may reflect species differences in sensitivity to the HTR (see below for further discussion).
[...] Both [MDMA and MDA] bind to the human 5-HT2B receptor, although with a 5-fold lower Ki value for MDA compared to MDMA (Ray, 2010; Setola et al., 2003). Both compounds were agonists in an assay of PI hydrolysis, with MDA (EC50=190nM) 10-fold more potent than MDMA (EC50=2000 nM) in addition to greater intrinsic efficacy (90% vs 32%) (Setola et al., 2003). [...] A 50mg dose of MDMA resulted in a mean plasma Cmax 266nM for MDMA and 28.5nM for MDA (de la Torre et al., 2000).
A controlled study on eight experienced MDMA users reported that 1.5 mg/kg (comparable to what was deemed a typical dosage amount) consumed orally resulted in the subjective effects peaking within 2 h of ingestion (Harris et al., 2002). Other research indicates effects to emerge between 20 and 60 min, with them peaking between 60 and 90 min and lasting up to 5 h (Green et al., 2003). A dose of 100 mg has a half-life of 8–9h(De la Torre et al., 2004), although as mentioned above, users are unaware of the dose they ingest.
Metabolism does not appear to be altered by chronic exposure, thus dose escalation appears to arise from pharmacodynamic rather than pharmacokinetic tolerance [24]. [...] The terminal plasma half-life of methamphetamine of approximately 10 hours is similar across administration routes, but with substantial inter-individual variability. Acute effects persist for up to 8 hours following a single moderate dose of 30 mg [30]. [...] peak plasma methamphetamine concentration occurs after 4 hours [35]. Nevertheless, peak cardiovascular and subjective effects occur rapidly (within 5–15 minutes). The dissociation between peak plasma concentration and clinical effects indicates acute tolerance, which may reflect rapid molecular processes such as redistribution of vesicular monoamines and internalization of monoamine receptors and transporters [6,36]. Acute subjective effects diminish over 4 hours, while cardiovascular effects tend to remain elevated. This is important, as the marked acute tachyphylaxis to subjective effects may drive repeated use within intervals of 4 hours, while cardiovascular risks may increase [11,35].
For several decades, clinical benefits of amphetamines have been limited by the pharmacologic half-life of around 4 hours. Although higher doses can produce higher maximum concentrations, they do not affect the half-life of the dose. Therefore, to achieve longer durations of effect, stimulants had to be dosed at least twice daily. Further, these immediate-release doses were found to have their greatest effect shortly after administration, with a rapid decline in effect after reaching peak blood concentrations. The clinical correlation of this was found in comparing math problems attempted and solved between a mixed amphetamine salts preparation (MAS) 10 mg once at 8 am vs 8 am followed by 12 pm [14]. The study also demonstrated the phenomenon of acute tolerance, where even if blood concentrations were maintained over the course of the day, clinical efficacy in the form of math problems attempted and solved would diminish over the course of the day. These findings eventually led to the development of a once daily preparation (MAS XR) [15], which is a composition of 50% immediate-release beads and 50% delayed release beads intended to mimic this twice-daily dosing with only a single administration.
Acute tolerance has been demonstrated for methamphetamine in rats (Segal and Kuczenski, 2006), and for D-amphetamine in rats (Lewander, 1971), [non-human primates (NHPs)] (Jedema et al., 2014) and humans (Angrist et al., 1987; Brauer et al., 1996; Dolder et al., 2017). In vivo measurement of dopamine by microdialysis was used in rats and NHPs to evaluate these time-dependent effects. In humans, various subjective measures of mood related to the drug's euphoric effects were observed to decline more rapidly than plasma concentrations following D-amphetamine oral doses ranging from 20 to 40 mg (Angrist et al., 1987; Brauer et al., 1996; Dolder et al., 2017). Whereas peak plasma concentrations and subjective effects occurred between 2 and 4 hours following administration, drug effect measures had largely returned to baseline values by 8 hours despite continued exposure to the drug (mean half-life=8 hours following a 40 mg dose (Dolder et al., 2017)).
Our results show that exposure to the SSRIs citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline and paroxetine all induced SERT internalization, but with different efficacies. The substrates 5-HT and MDMA also induced SERT internalization, while cocaine elevated SERT cell surface expression.
Fig. 7 shows the mean PD effects of MDMA plotted against simultaneous plasma concentrations at the different time points (hysteresis loops). The increases in "any drug effect" (Fig. 7a) and MAP (Fig. 7b) returned to baseline within 6 h when MDMA concentrations were still high. This clockwise hysteresis indicates that a smaller MDMA effect was seen at a given plasma concentration later in time, indicating rapid acute pharmacodynamic tolerance, which was similarly described for cocaine [33]. [...] Figure 7. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationship. MDMA effects are plotted against simultaneous MDMA plasma concentrations (a, b). The time of sampling is noted next to each point in minutes or hours after MDMA administration. The clockwise hysteresis indicates acute tolerance to the effects of MDMA.
In contrast, MDMA produces damage to serotonergic, but not dopaminergic axon terminals in the striatum, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (Battaglia et al., 1987, O'Hearn et al., 1988). The damage associated with Meth and MDMA has been shown to persist for at least 2 years in rodents, non-human primates and humans (Seiden et al., 1988, Woolverton et al., 1989, McCann et al., 1998, Volkow et al., 2001a, McCann et al., 2005)
It seems to present a smaller addiction potential than cocaine or methamphetamine.
...approximately 15% of routine MDMA users recently fit the diagnostic criteria for MDMA dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition/DSMIV.
β-Keto-analogue cathinones also exhibited approximately 10-fold lower affinity for the TA1 receptor compared with their respective non-β-keto amphetamines. [...] Activation of TA1 receptors negatively modulates dopaminergic neurotransmission. Importantly, methamphetamine decreased DAT surface expression via a TA1 receptor-mediated mechanism and thereby reduced the presence of its own pharmacological target (Xie and Miller, 2009). MDMA and amphetamine have been shown to produce enhanced DA and 5-HT release and locomotor activity in TA1 receptor knockout mice compared with wild-type mice (Lindemann et al., 2008; Di Cara et al., 2011). Because methamphetamine and MDMA auto-inhibit their neurochemical and functional effects via TA1 receptors, low affinity for these receptors may result in stronger effects on monoamine systems by cathinones compared with the classic amphetamines.
Unlike structurally related psychostimulants such as amphetamine and methamphetamine (Figure 1), which primarily release noradrenaline and dopamine over 5-HT via an identical mechanism, MDMA preferentially releases 5-HT and noradrenaline (Rothman et al., 2001) (Table 1). However, the selectivity by which MDMA releases monoamines is species-dependent. For example, in rat brain synaptosomes, MDMA preferentially releases 5-HT with modest selectivity (<10-fold) over noradrenaline and dopamine (Rothman et al., 2001; Setola et al., 2003). In contrast, studies using cloned human transporters in heterologous cells indicate that MDMA preferentially inhibits the release of noradrenaline with modest selectivity over 5-HT and dopamine (Han & Gu, 2006; Verrico et al., 2007). These species differences are most prominent for SERT, as MDMA more potently inhibits rodent over human SERT, with no species differences at NET and DAT (Han & Gu, 2006).
A recent study used 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) as a pharmacological provocation agent (196, 197). A single 100-mg dose of MDMA led to an 8-fold increase in plasma OXT in healthy individuals, but elicited no OXT increase in patients with AVP deficiency (197). Correspondingly, controls experienced characteristic psychoactive effects such as empathy, trust, openness, and reduced anxiety, whereas patients displayed blunted or absent responses, both emotionally and physiologically.
It is postulated that MDMA-induced neuronal apoptosis arises from directly stimulating the 5HT2A receptor. However, it is unclear whether MDMA binds here directly or whether one of its active metabolites (for example, MDA exhibits a 5-HT2A affinity almost 10-fold better than MDMA) is responsible.70,80,81 In addition, R-MDMA more potently activates 5-HT2A second messenger signaling, with S-MDMA having a minimal effect and racemic MDMA acting as a weak partial agonist.
Determining the role of specific 5-HT receptors in MDMA's effects in vivo is complicated by the presence of 14 different 5-HT receptor subtypes (Barnes and Sharp, 1999; Hoyer et al., 2002), many of which affect DA function (Alex and Pehek, 2007; Bubar and Cunningham, 2006). Nonetheless, there is general agreement that 5-HT1B, 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptor subtypes influence locomotor effects of MDMA. Hyperactivity produced by MDMA is mimicked by administration of the 5-HT1B agonist RU-24969 (Rempel et al., 1993), and 5-HT1B antagonists inhibit MDMA-induced ambulation (Callaway and Geyer, 1992b; Fletcher et al., 2002; McCreary et al., 1999). 5-HT2A antagonists reduce ambulation produced by MDMA (Fletcher et al., 2002; Kehne et al., 1996), whereas 5-HT2C antagonists markedly enhance it (Bankson and Cunningham, 2002; Fletcher et al., 2006). Taken together, these data reveal that 5-HT1B and 5-HT2A receptors facilitate, while 5-HT2C receptors suppress, forward locomotion evoked by MDMA administration. Importantly, the neural circuits underlying serotonergic modulation of MDMA-induced activity are largely unexplored.
Here we show that acute pharmacological inhibition or genetic ablation of the 5-HT2B receptor in mice completely abolishes MDMA-induced hyperlocomotion and 5-HT release in nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area. Furthermore, the 5-HT2B receptor dependence of MDMA-stimulated release of endogenous 5-HT from superfused midbrain synaptosomes suggests that 5-HT2B receptors act, unlike any other 5-HT receptor, presynaptically to affect MDMA-stimulated 5-HT release.
[MDxx] have been assessed in head twitch studies. Racemic [MDA] and S-(+)-MDA reportedly induce WDS in monkeys and rats, respectively (Schlemmer and Davis 1986; Hiramatsu et al. 1989). Although [MDMA] does not induce the HTR in mice, both of the stereoisomers of MDMA have been shown to elicit the response (Fantegrossi et al. 2004, 2005b). 5-HT depletion inhibits the response to S-(+)-MDMA but does not alter the response to R-(−)-MDMA, suggesting the isomers act through different mechanisms (Fantegrossi et al. 2005b). This suggestion is consistent with the fact that S-(+)- and R-(−)-MDMA exhibit qualitatively distinct pharmacological profiles, with the S-(+)isomer working primarily as a monoamine releaser (Johnson et al. 1986; Baumann et al. 2008; Murnane et al. 2010) and the R-(−)-enantiomer acting directly through 5-HT2A receptors (Lyon et al. 1986; Nash et al. 1994). In contrast to their effects in mice, Hiramatsu reported that S-(+)- and R-(−)-MDMA fail to produce WDS in rats (Hiramatsu et al. 1989). The discrepant findings with MDMA in mice and rats may reflect species differences in sensitivity to the HTR (see below for further discussion).
[MDA] is also remarkable because the N-methyl homolog 3,4 (MDMA) has biological activity, although the nature of its action places it outside of this review. No other phenethylamine hallucinogen retains central activity on N-methylation.
...the addictive potential of MDMA itself is relatively small.
Animal and human studies demonstrate moderate abuse liability for MDMA, and this effect may be of most concern to those treating substance abuse disorders.
Given the dose-response relationship between MDMA exposure and SERT reductions and the statistically non-significant SERT binding differences for users with use levels similar to the majority of real-life users, it can be speculated that SERT levels may not be significantly affected for most recreational ecstasy users.
Animal and human studies demonstrate moderate abuse liability for MDMA, and this effect may be of most concern to those treating substance abuse disorders.
Although MDMA was, in fact, first synthesized at Merck in 1912, it was not tested pharmacologically because it was only an unimportant precursor in a new synthesis for haemostatic substances.
MDMA er virkestoffet i både Molly-krystaller og Ecstasy-tabletter. (MDMA is the active substance in both Molly crystals and Ecstasy tablets)
[...] Both [MDMA and MDA] bind to the human 5-HT2B receptor, although with a 5-fold lower Ki value for MDA compared to MDMA (Ray, 2010; Setola et al., 2003). Both compounds were agonists in an assay of PI hydrolysis, with MDA (EC50=190nM) 10-fold more potent than MDMA (EC50=2000 nM) in addition to greater intrinsic efficacy (90% vs 32%) (Setola et al., 2003). [...] A 50mg dose of MDMA resulted in a mean plasma Cmax 266nM for MDMA and 28.5nM for MDA (de la Torre et al., 2000).
Animal and human studies demonstrate moderate abuse liability for MDMA, and this effect may be of most concern to those treating substance abuse disorders.
MDMA er virkestoffet i både Molly-krystaller og Ecstasy-tabletter. (MDMA is the active substance in both Molly crystals and Ecstasy tablets)
Although MDMA was, in fact, first synthesized at Merck in 1912, it was not tested pharmacologically because it was only an unimportant precursor in a new synthesis for haemostatic substances.
MDA and MDMA are less reinforcing than amphetamine...
There are no known pharmacological treatments for MDMA addiction.
[MDA] is also remarkable because the N-methyl homolog 3,4 (MDMA) has biological activity, although the nature of its action places it outside of this review. No other phenethylamine hallucinogen retains central activity on N-methylation.
Why is it called Molly? That's short for "molecule." "You can put a ribbon and bow on it and call it a cute name like 'Molly' and people are all in," said Paul Doering, professor emeritus of pharmacology at the University of Florida.
MDMA increased heart rate (HR) by 25 bpm (p<.001), [cardiac output (CO)] by 1.75 L/min (p<0.01) but did not alter [stroke volume (SV)] or [systemic vascular resistance (SVR)]. Compared to MDMA alone the combination of MDMA + prazosin further increased HR by 24 bpm (p<0.001) and CO by 3.3L/min (p<0.02). MDMA increased systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) by 26 mmHg (p<0.001 each); prazosin attenuated MDMA effects on DBP by 9.3 mmHg (p<001) but did not alter SBP. [...] MDMA increases HR, producing elevations in CO. The hypertensive effects of MDMA are not due to elevated peripheral vascular resistance and the blood pressure effects of MDMA are not attenuated by α-adrenergic blockade, suggesting that MDMA may produce CV effects through non-α-adrenergic mechanisms.