Comparison of ketanserin, buspirone and propranolol on arousal, pupil size and autonomic function in healthy volunteers.

RATIONALE: The human pupil may be a suitable physiological test system for the assessment of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), but pupillometric assessment could be confounded by medication for comorbid hypertension and mood disorders. OBJECTIVES: We examined the profile of the 5HT-2/alpha1/H1 antagonist ketanserin, the 5HT1a agonist buspirone and the beta adrenoceptor antagonist propranolol on pupillary and other measures of arousal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ketanserin (20 mg), buspirone (10 mg) and propranolol (40 mg) were administered in three independent experiments according to a crossover, placebo-controlled, double-blind design. Resting pupil diameter (RPD) was sampled over 5-min in darkness with infrared pupillometry. Tests also included critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFF), visual analogue scales (VAS), the pupillary light reflex and heart rate/blood pressure. RESULTS: Ketanserin reduced RPD, CFFF, VAS-rated arousal and blood pressure and increased the light reflex amplitude. Buspirone reduced RPD and blood pressure. Propranolol reduced heart rate but had no effects on pupillary functions or any arousal measure. CONCLUSIONS: Ketanserin but not propranolol had a fully sedative profile and may confound pupillometric assessment of EDS. Beta adrenergic receptors do not appear to participate in arousal and pupillary functions, while 5HT1a receptors reduce pupil size without affecting arousal. Pupil size may not be used unequivocally as an index of the level of alertness in the case of drug-induced changes, when drugs interfere with the central pupil control mechanism in ways that are unrelated to their effects on arousal.

Parametric exploration of the fear-inhibited light reflex.

The effect of various parameters on the mediation of the fear-inhibited light reflex was examined. The light reflexes of 16 healthy men were measured across four light probe intensities, either in the presence of white noise alone or when the white noise was associated with the threat of either an electric shock or an acoustic sound blast. The white noise alone did not affect the light reflex amplitude. Both types of threat were subjectively anxiogenic and inhibited the light reflex across all light probe intensities, the threat of shock being more potent than the threat of sound blast. Importantly, the effect of either type of threat on the light reflex amplitude was found to increase with increasing light probe intensity, suggesting that brighter light probes may become more relevant motivationally in the threat condition, thus attracting greater allocation of attentional/cognitive resources.

Effects of peripheral sympathetic blockade with dapiprazole on the fear-inhibited light reflex.

Fear (e.g. associated with the threat of an electric shock) causes an increase in initial pupil diameter (IPD) and a decrease in the amplitude of the light reflex response. There is evidence for dissociation between the two responses to threat: only the reduction in light reflex response amplitude is sensitive to the anxiolytic drug diazepam. We examined the effects of peripheral sympathetic blockade with the alpha(1)-adrenoceptor antagonist dapiprazole on both responses to threat on the basis of the hypothesis that only the response of the IPD will be affected, whereas the response of the light reflex will remain unaffected. Twelve healthy volunteers (Experiment 1) and eight healthy volunteers with smaller pupils (Experiment 2) participated in one experimental session. Dapiprazole 0.5% (two drops of 20 microl, three times) was instilled in the subjects' right or left eye while the contralateral eye was treated with placebo eye drops (artificial tear, two drops of 20 microl, three times) according to a single-blind balanced design. Pupil diameter was monitored by infrared binocular television pupillometry. At the point of maximum dapiprazole-evoked miosis, the light reflex was elicited three times in each of three Safe blocks (no possibility of electric shock), alternating with three Threat blocks (possibility of electric shock). At the end of each Safe and Threat block, subjects rated their mood and feelings on the Visual Analogue Scales. In Experiment 1, dapiprazole caused significant miosis. Threat increased subjectively rated anxiety and inhibited the light reflex. The inhibition of the light reflex was unaffected by dapiprazole. The threat-induced increase in IPD was also unaffected by dapiprazole, probably due to a ceiling effect curtailing the threat-induced increase in IPD. In the smaller pupil group in Experiment 2, where the possible contribution of a ceiling effect was minimized, dapiprazole suppressed the threat-induced increase in IPD. The inhibition of the light reflex by threat is likely to reflect central parasympathetic inhibition and is unlikely to involve the peripheral sympathetic innervation of the iris. The threat-induced increase in IPD is likely to reflect mainly central sympathetic excitation. The different central autonomic mechanisms underlying the two pupillary responses to threat may explain the dissociation between the separate effects of threat on IPD and light reflex amplitude.