Abstract
A model of drug tolerance, dependence and addiction is presented. The model is essentially much more complex than the commonly used model of homeostasis, which is demonstrated to fail in describing tolerance development to repeated drug administrations. The model assumes the development of tolerance to a repeatedly administered drug to be the result of a process of intermittently developing adaptation. The oral detection and analysis of endogenous substances is proposed to be the primary stimulus triggering the adaptation process. Anticipation and environmental cues are considered secondary stimuli, becoming primary only in dependence and addiction or when the drug administration bypasses the natural—oral—route, as is the case when drugs are administered intravenously. The model considers adaptation to the effect of a drug and adaptation to the interval between drug taking to be autonomously functioning adaptation processes. Simulations with the mathematical model demonstrate the model’s behaviour to be consistent with important characteristics of the development of tolerance to repeatedly administered drugs: the gradual decrease in drug effect when tolerance develops, the high sensitivity to small changes in drug dose, the rebound phenomenon and the large reactions following withdrawal in dependence.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This downward shift in the functioning of the process represents the drug induced change in the functioning of processes involved in the drug effect. The shift depends mainly on the functioning of the slow regulator which can have a long time constant (see Sect. 2.4.2). As a result, the shift may remain a long time after a drug is withdrawn. This has important consequences as was first pointed out in a previous publication (Peper et al. 1987): The negative shift of the process output on drug withdrawal signifies the occurrence of antagonistic symptoms with respect to the drug effect and these are consequently in the “direction” of the disorder the drug was intended to counteract (Kalant et al. 1971). This implies […] a worsening of the disorder of the patient after termination of drug treatment. Apparently, for the body, adaptation to a medicine means a shift in its functioning in the direction of the disease.
- 2.
The bend at the bottom of the dose–response curve is largely caused by the logarithmic scale. In a linear process, a linear change in dose will cause a linear change in drug effect, as long as there is no tolerance development (curve (d)). With a linear scale, distortion of the curve due to tolerance development is easily noticed. However, as the dose–response curve is commonly presented using a logarithmic dose scale, this has also been adopted here. The saturation in the top of the dose–response curve in Fig. 2.15 is the natural maximal activity of the processes involved. This effect has been left out in the simulation of Fig. 2.16 as it has no relevance to the present subject.
References
Ahmed SH, Kenny PJ, Koob GF, Markou A (2002) Neurobiological evidence for hedonic allostasis associated with escalating cocaine use. Nat Neurosci 5(7):625–626
Ahmed SH, Koob GF (2005) Transition to drug addiction: a negative reinforcement model based on an allostatic decrease in reward function. Psychopharmacology 180(3):473–490
Ali RE, Rattan SIS (2006) Curcumin’s biphasic hormetic response on proteasome activity and heat shock protein synthesis in human keratinocytes. Ann NY Acad Sci 1067:394–399
Baker TB, Tiffany ST (1985) Morphine tolerance as habituation. Psychol Rev 92:78–108
Bell D, Griffin AWJ (eds) (1969) Modern control theory and computing. McGraw-Hill, London
Bernard C (1878) Leçons sur les Phénomènes de la Vie Communs aux Animaux et aux Végétaux. Bailliére et Fils, Paris
Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2001) The frequency of U-shaped dose–responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci 62:330–338
Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003) A general classification of U-shaped dose–response relationships in toxicology and their mechanistic foundations. Hum Exp Toxicol 17:353–364
Cannon WB (1929) Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiol Rev 9:399–431
Conolly RB, Lutz WK (2004) Nonmonotonic dose–response relationships: mechanistic basis, kinetic modeling, and implications for risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 77:151–157
Deutsch R (1974) Conditioned hypoglycemia: a mechanism for saccharid-induced sensitivity to insulin in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol 86:350–358
Dworkin BR (1993) Learning and physiological regulation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Everitt BJ, Wolf ME (2002) Psychomotor stimulant addiction: a neural systems perspective. J Neurosci 22:3312–3320
Fillmore MT, Vogel-Sprott M (1999) An alcohol model of impaired inhibitory control and its treatment in humans. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7:49–55
Goldstein A, Goldstein DB (1968) Enzyme expansion theory of drug tolerance and physical dependence. In: Wikler A (ed) The addictive states. Research publications association for research nervous and mental disease, vol 46. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, p 265
Grattan-Miscio K, Vogel-Sprott M (2005) Effects of alcohol and performance incentives on immediate working memory. Psychopharmacology 81:188–196
Grill HJ, Berridge KC, Ganster DJ (1984) Oral glucose is the prime elicitor of preabsorptive insulin secretion. Am J Physiol 246:R88–R95
Heding LG, Munkgaard Rasmussen S (1975) Human C-peptide in normal and diabetic subjects. Diabetologia 11:201–206
Heisler LK, Tecott LH (2000) A paradoxical locomotor response in serotonin 5-HT2C receptor mutant mice. J Neurosci 20:RC71
Jaffe JH, Sharpless SK (1968) Pharmacological denervation super sensitivity in the central nervous system: a theory of physical dependence. In: Wikler A (ed) The addictive states. Research publications association for research nervous and mental disease, vol 46. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, p 226
Kalant H, LeBlanc AE, Gibbins RJ (1971) Tolerance to and dependence on, some non-opiate psychotropic drugs. Pharmacol Rev 23(3):135–191
Kandel ER (1976) Cellular basis of behaviour; an introduction to behavioral neurobiology. Freeman and Comp, San Fransisco
Koob GF, Le Moal M (2001) Drug addiction, dysregulation of reward, and allostasis. Neuropsychopharmacology 24:97–129
Koshland DE (1977) A response regulator model in a simple sensory system. Science 196:1055–1063
Loewy AD, Haxhiu MA (1993) CNS cell groups projecting to pancreatic parasympathetic preganglionic neurons. Brain Res 620:323–330
Martin WR (1968) A homeostatic and redundancy theory of tolerance to and dependence on narcotic analgesics. In: Wikler A (ed) The addictive states. Research publications association for research nervous and mental disease, vol 46. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, p 206
Miller CS (2000) Mechanisms of action of addictive stimuli; toxicant-induced loss of tolerance. Addiction 96(1):115–139
Mirel RD, Ginsberg-Fellner F, Horwitz DL, Rayfield EJ (1980) C-peptide reserve in insulin-dependent diabetes: Comparative responses to glucose, glucagon and tabutamide. Diabetologia 19:183–188
Mitchell D, Snellen JW, Atkins AR (1970) Thermoregulation during fever: change of set-point or change of gain. Pflügers Arch 321:393
Peper A, Grimbergen CA, Kraal JW, Engelbart JH (1987) An approach to the modelling of the tolerance mechanism in the drug effect. Part I: The drug effect as a disturbance of regulations. J Theor Biol 127:413–426
Peper A, Grimbergen CA, Kraal JW, Engelbart JH (1988) An approach to the modelling of the tolerance mechanism in the drug effect. Part II: On the implications of compensatory regulations. J Theor Biol 132:29–41
Peper A, Grimbergen CA et al. (1998) A mathematical model of the hsp70 regulation in the cell. Int J Hypertherm 14(1):97–124
Peper A, Grimbergen CA (1999) Preliminary results of simulations with an improved mathematical model of drug tolerance. J Theor Biol 199:119–123
Peper A (2004a) A theory of drug tolerance and dependence I: A conceptual analysis. J Theor Biol 229:477–490
Peper A (2004b) A theory of drug tolerance and dependence II: The mathematical model. J Theor Biol 229:491–500
Peper A (2009a) Aspects of the relationship between drug dose and drug effect. Dose Response 7(2):172–192
Peper A (2009b) Intermittent adaptation. A theory of drug tolerance, dependence and addiction. Pharmacopsychiatry 42(Suppl 1):S129–S143
Poulos CX, Cappell H (1991) Homeostatic theory of drug tolerance: a general model of physiological adaptation. Psychol Rev 98:390–408
Ramsay DS, Woods SC (1997) Biological consequences of drug administration: implications for acute and chronic tolerance. Psychol Rev 104:170–193
Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99
Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitisation theory of addiction. Brains Res Rev 18:247–291
Schulkin J (2003) Rethinking homeostasis: allostatic regulation in physiology and pathophysiology. MIT Press, Cambridge
Siegel S (1975) Evidence from rats that morphine tolerance is a learned response. J Comp Physiol Psychol 89:498–506
Siegel S (1996) Learning and homeostasis. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 31(2):189
Siegel S (1999) Drug anticipation and drug addiction. The 1998 H. David Archibald lecture. Addiction 94(8):1113–1124
Siegel S, Allan LG (1998) Learning and homeostasis: drug addiction and the McCollough effect. Psychol Bull 124(2):230–239
Siegel S, Hinson RE, Krank MD, McCully J (1982) Heroin “overdose” death: contribution of drug-associated environmental cues. Science 216:436–437
Snyder SH (1977) Opiate receptors and internal opiates. Sci Am 236:44–56
Solomon RL, Corbit JD (1973) An opponent-process theory of motivation II: Cigarette addiction. J Abnorm Psychol 81:158–171
Solomon RL, Corbit JD (1974) An opponent-process theory of motivation. I: Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychol Rev 81:119–145
Solomon RL (1977) An opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: the affective dynamics of addiction. In: Maser JD, Seligman MEP (eds) Psychopathology: experimental models. Freeman, San Francisco, pp 66–103
Solomon RL (1980) The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: the costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. Am Psychol 35:691–712
Steffens AB (1976) Influence of the oral cavity on insulin release in the rat. Am J Physiol 230:1411–1415
Sterling P, Eyer J (1988) Allostasis: a new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In: Fisher S, Reason J (eds) Handbook of life stress, cognition and health. Wiley, New York, pp 629–649
Sterling P (2004) Principles of allostasis: optimal design, predictive regulation, pathophysiology and rational therapeutics. In: Schulkin J (ed) Allostasis homeostasis and the costs of adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Thorpe WH (1956) Learning and instinct in animals. Methuen and Co, London
Tiffany ST, Baker TB (1981) Morphine tolerance in rats: Congruence with a Pavlovian paradigm. J Comp Physiol Psychol 95:747–762
Tiffany ST, Maude-Griffin PM (1988) Tolerance to morphine in the rat: associative and nonassociative effects. Behav Neurosci 102(4):534–543
Toates FM (1979) Homeostasis and drinking. Behav Brain Sci 2:95–136
Verveen AA (1978) Silent endocrine tumors. A steady-state analysis of the effects of changes in cell number for biological feedback systems. Biol Cybern 31:49
Verveen AA (1983) Theory of diseases of steady-state proportional control systems. Biol Cybern 47:25
von Bertalanffi L (1949) Zu einer allgemeinen Systemlehre. Biol Gen 195:114–129
von Bertalanffi L (1950) An outline of general systems theory. Br J Philos Sci 1:139–164
Wagner AR (1978) Expectancies and the primary of STM. In: Hulse S, Fowler H, Honig WK (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behaviour. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 177–209
Wagner AR (1981) SOP: a model of automatic memory processing in animal behaviour. In: Spear NE, Miller RR (eds) Habituation: perspectives from child development, animal behaviour and neurophysiology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Wiegant FAC, Spieker N, van Wijk R (1998) Stressor-specific enhancement of hsp induction by low doses of stressors in conditions of self- and cross-sensitisation. Toxicology 127(1–3):107–119
Wiener N (1948) Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Wiley, New York
Wilens TE, Biederman J, Kwon A, Chase R et al. (2003) A systematic chart review of the nature of psychiatric adverse events in children and adolescents treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 13(2):143–152
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank C.A. Grimbergen, R. Jonges, J. Habraken and I. Jans for their critical support and valuable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The model is a non-linear, learning feedback system, fully satisfying control theoretical principles. It accepts any form of the stimulus—the drug intake—and describes how the physiological processes involved affect the distribution of the drug through the body and the stability of the regulation loop. The model assumes the development of tolerance to a repeatedly administered drug to be the result of a regulated adaptive process; adaptation to the effect of a drug and adaptation to the interval between drug taking are considered autonomous tolerance processes.
The mathematical model is derived in detail in Peper (2004b). In the present appendix the equations are summarised. A block diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 2.25. For the sake of brevity, the index ‘(t)’ in time signals is omitted.
1.1 A.1 The Digestive Tract
The digestive system plays no role in the regulation loop. Drug transport through the digestive tract is modeled as a first order function:
The input to the block is the drug administration, drug. The input signal is integrated to obtain the drug level when it enters the bloodstream, the output of the block S digest. A fraction 1/T digest of the output signal is subtracted from the input to account for the distribution of the drug in the digestive tract. T digest is the time constant of this process.
1.2 A.2 The Bloodstream
After digestion, the drug enters the bloodstream where it is dispersed. In the present configuration of the model, the drug and the substance produced by the process are assumed to be identical in composition and consequently add in the bloodstream. The amount of the total substance in the bloodstream will be reduced by the body’s metabolism. The processes are modeled by a first order function:
The input signals—the drug as it moves from the digestive tract into the bloodstream, S digest, and the substance produced by the process, S process—are added and integrated, yielding the output of the block, the blood drug level S blood. To account for the body’s metabolism, a fraction 1/T blood of the output signal is subtracted from the input.
1.3 A.3 The Adaptive Regulator
The input signals of the adaptive regulator are the drug administration and the sensor signal, processed by the loop control block. The sensor signal provides the information about the drug effect. The output of the adaptive regulator counteracts the disturbance by lowering the process output during the drug’s presence. The adaptive regulator comprises a fast and a slow regulator. The fast regulator consists of the blocks “drug regulator”, “interval regulator” and “model estimation”. The slow regulator suppresses the slow changes in the input signal, its output being the average of the input signal. As the fast regulator reacts to fast changes only, the output of the slow regulator is subtracted from its input. It is assumed that the body more or less separately develops tolerance to the drug’s presence and to the intervals between drug administrations. The fast regulator therefore consists of a regulator which provides the adaptation to the drug’s direct effect and a regulator which provides adaptation to the interval between drug taking. The output of the complete adaptive regulator is a combination of signals from its individual components.
The model assumes the body to anticipate the effect of a drug to which it has developed tolerance. This implies that the body has made an estimate of what is going to happen when the drug is administered: it has a model of it. The organism has also made an estimate of the magnitude of the drug effect at the given state of tolerance development. These two entities are the main factors determining the functioning of the fast regulator: the level of tolerance development and the course of the drug effect.
1.3.1 A.3.1 The Fast Regulator
The fast regulator consists of the blocks “drug regulator”, “interval regulator” and “model estimation” (Fig. 2.26). The input signal of the drug regulator S d is multiplied by M drug, which represents the course of the drug level in the input signal over time. This signal is integrated (1/s) with a time constant T drug, yielding its average. The resulting value is a slowly rising signal, L drug. Multiplying L drug by M drug yields the output signal S drug.
Because of the slow response of the circuit, changes in the input magnitude will be followed only slowly by the output. The speed of change of the output magnitude—representing the slow development of tolerance by the organism—depends on the frequency of occurrence of the drug signal and the amplification of the feedback loop: 1/T drug. The relation between the signals is
and
The input to the interval regulator is obtained when the output signal of the drug regulator—S drug—is subtracted from its top value L drug. The model of the interval is M int.
The relation between the signals in the fast regulator describing the drug’s presence is then
and
Similarly, the equation describing the interval regulator is
and
The output of the interval regulator is S int. The output signal of the total fast regulator is obtained by subtracting the interval signal from the top level of the drug signal:
Figure 2.27 shows the implementation of the fast regulator in the mathematical simulation program Simulink (see Peper 2004b).
1.3.2 A.3.2 Estimation of the Drug Effect in the Adaptive Regulator
As the duration of the drug administration is relatively short in most cases, it may be represented by a short pulse. The model of the course of the drug concentration when it enters the bloodstream—M drug—is then computed by calculating the effect of a pulse with a magnitude of 1 on the digestive tract’s transfer function. The input of the interval is acquired when the signal “drug” is subtracted from its top value of 1. Multiplying this signal by the transfer of the digestive tract yields the model of the interval M int:
and
T digest is the time constant of the digestive system.
1.3.3 A.3.3 The Slow Regulator
The slow regulator models the long term adaptation to the drug effect. In the tolerant state, the slow adaptation causes the magnitude of the negative reaction after the drug effect to depend on the interval between drug administrations: an infrequently taken drug has a small effect during the interval, while a frequently taken drug causes a large rebound. The slow regulator counteracts the disturbance by lowering the level of the process by the average of the drug effect. Its input signal—the sensor signal, processed by the loop control block—provides the information about the drug effect. The average of the input signal is obtained by a low pass filter with a time constant T slow:
1.4 A.4 The Process
The model does not incorporate the characteristics of the process and the process regulator. In a specific model of drug tolerance where the process is included, the effect of the process transfer on loop stability has to be controlled by the loop control block.
1.5 A.5 Loop Control
A loop control is an essential element in any regulated system. It incorporates the open loop amplification, which determines the accuracy of the regulation, and it provides the necessary conditions for stable operation of the negative feedback system. For stable operation, the regulation loop has to contain compensation for the effect of superfluous time constants: their effect on the signals in the loop has to be counteracted by circuits with an inverse effect. In the present form of the model, only the effect of the bloodstream on the regulation loop is counteracted as the transfer of the process and its regulator and the transfer function of the sensor are set at unity. The relation between the input and the output of the loop control is
1.6 A.6 The Sensor
The sensor transforms the chemical signal S blood—the blood drug level—into the signal S sense. In the present model, this transformation is assumed to be linear and is set at 1. In specific models of physiological processes, this complex mechanism can be described more accurately. Stable operation then requires that the effect of its transfer on loop stability is controlled by the loop control block.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Peper, A. (2012). Intermittent Adaptation: A Mathematical Model of Drug Tolerance, Dependence and Addiction. In: Gutkin, B., Ahmed, S. (eds) Computational Neuroscience of Drug Addiction. Springer Series in Computational Neuroscience, vol 10. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0751-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0751-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0750-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0751-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)