Challenges and approaches to estimating mortality attributable to the use of selected illicit drugs

A number of unique challenges are faced when attempting to estimate mortality attributable to illicit drugs. The hidden nature of illicit drug use creates difficulties in quantifying the prevalence of such use; identifying adverse health effects associated with exposure, and calculating the risk of these effects. The use of cohort studies of drug users allows the identification of causes of mortality associated with drug use and the determination of the risk of these causes. This risk estimate can then be used in conjunction with estimates of the prevalence of drug use to, extrapolate the burden of mortality. We identify a number of such studies and present some solutions to the major challenges faced when attempting to estimate the global burden of mortality attributable to illicit drug use. Copyright (C) 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Illicit Opiate Abuse

Illicit opiate use, especially injected drugs, contributes to premature mortality and morbidity in many developed and developing societies. The economic costs of illicit drug use are substantial. Fatal overdoses and HIV/AIDS resulting from sharing dirty needles and injecting equipment are major contributors to mortality and morbidity. Illicit opioid use accounted for 0.7 percent of global disability–adjusted life years in 2000. An estimated 15.3 million people, or 0.4 percent of the world population ages 15 to 64, used illicit opioids in 2002, with more than half using heroin and the rest using opium or diverted pharmaceuticals such as buprenorphine, methadone, or morphine. The most popular interventions for illicit opioid dependence in many developed societies have been law enforcement efforts to interdict the drug supply and enforce legal sanctions against drug use. One consequence has been that illicit opioid users have been exposed to the least effective intervention: imprisonment for drug or property offenses. The most effective intervention to reduce blood–borne virus infection resulting from illicit drug injections is provision of clean injecting equipment to users. This intervention has been widely supported in developed countries, but less so in developing countries. In addition, vaccinations are effective against hepatitis B. In treatment settings, the most popular interventions have been detoxification and drug–free treatment, which has proven the least productive in retaining opioid–dependent people in treatment. Opioid agonists have a niche role in treatment of opioid dependence, especially if their efficacy improves with development of long–acting injectable forms of the drug.

Is cannabis a gateway drug? Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs

We outline and evaluate competing explanations of three relationships that have consistently been found between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs, namely, ( 1) that cannabis use typically precedes the use of other illicit drugs; and that ( 2) the earlier cannabis is used, and ( 3) the more regularly it is used, the more likely a young person is to use other illicit drugs. We consider three major competing explanations of these patterns: ( 1) that the relationship is due to the fact that there is a shared illicit market for cannabis and other drugs which makes it more likely that other illicit drugs will be used if cannabis is used; ( 2) that they are explained by the characteristics of those who use cannabis; and ( 3) that they reflect a causal relationship in which the pharmacological effects of cannabis on brain function increase the likelihood of using other illicit drugs. These explanations are evaluated in the light of evidence from longitudinal epidemiological studies, simulation studies, discordant twin studies and animal studies. The available evidence indicates that the association reflects in part but is not wholly explained by: ( 1) the selective recruitment to heavy cannabis use of persons with pre-existing traits ( that may be in part genetic) that predispose to the use of a variety of different drugs; ( 2) the affiliation of cannabis users with drug using peers in settings that provide more opportunities to use other illicit drugs at an earlier age; ( 3) supported by socialisation into an illicit drug subculture with favourable attitudes towards the use of other illicit drugs. Animal studies have raised the possibility that regular cannabis use may have pharmacological effects on brain function that increase the likelihood of using other drugs. We conclude with suggestions for the type of research studies that will enable a decision to be made about the relative contributions that social context, individual characteristics, and drug effects make to the relationship between cannabis use and the use of other drugs.

Dissecting the causal anatomy of the link between cannabis and other illicit drugs

No Abstract

The development of an early warning system to detect trends in illicit drug use in Australia: The illicit drug reporting-system

Appropriate ways to monitor the availability and use of illicit drugs were examined. Four methods were tested concurrently: (1) a quantitative survey of injecting drug users, (2) a qualitative key informant study of illicit drug users and professionals working in the drug field, (3) examination of existing sources of survey, health and law enforcement data and (4) an ethnographic study of a high risk group of illicit drug users. The first three methods were recommended for inclusion in an ongoing national monitoring system, enabling the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data on a range of illicit drugs in a relatively brief, quick and cost-effective manner. A degree of convergent validity was also noted among these methods, improving the degree of confidence in drug trends. The importance of injecting drug users as a sentinel population of illicit drug users was highlighted, along with optimal methods for qualitative research.

Methadone maintenance and drug-related crime

Using data from an evaluation of methadone maintenance treatment, this study investigated factors associated with continued involvement irt crime during treatment, and in particular whether there appeared to be differences in effectiveness of treatment between different methadone clinics. The methodology was an observational study, in which 304 patients attending three low-intervention, private methadone clinics in Sydney were interviewed on three occasions over a twelve month period. Outcome measures were self-reported criminal activity and police department records of convictions. By self-report, crime dropped, promptly and substantially on entry to treatment, to a level of acquisitive crime about one-eighth that reported during the last addiction period. Analysis of official records indicated that rates of acquisitive convictions were significantly lower in the in-treatment period compared to prior to entry to treatment, corroborating the changes suggested by self-report. Persisting involvement in crime in treatment was predicted by two factors: the cost of persisting use of illicit drugs, particularly cannabis, and ASPD symptom count. Treatment factors also were independently predictive of continued involvement in crime. By both self-report and official records, and adjusting for subject factors, treatment at one clinic teas associated with greater involvement in crime. This clinic operated in a chaotic and poorly organized way. it is concluded that crime during methadone treatment is substantially lower than during street addiction, although the extent of reduction depends on the quality of treatment being delivered.

Cannabis use and psychosis

This paper reviews evidence on two hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis. The first hypothesis is that heavy cannabis use may cause a cannabis psychosis-a psychosis that would not occur in the absence of cannabis use, the symptoms of which are preceded by heavy cannabis use and remit after abstinence. The second hypothesis is that cannabis use may precipitate schizophrenia, or exacerbate its symptoms. Evaluation of these hypotheses requires evidence of an association between cannabis use and psychosis, that is unlikely to be due to chance, in which cannabis use precedes psychosis, and in which we can exclude the hypothesis that the relationship is due to other factors, such as other drug use, or a personal vulnerability to psychosis. There is some clinical support for the first hypothesis. If these disorders exist they seem to be rare, because they require very high doses of THC, the prolonged use of highly potent forms of cannabis, or a pre-existing (but as yet unspecified) vulnerability. There is more support for the second hypothesis, in that a large prospective study has shown a linear relationship between the frequency with which cannabis has been used by age 18 and the risks over the subsequent 15 years of a diagnosis of schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether this means that cannabis use precipitates schizophrenia, whether it is a form of self-medication, or whether the association is due to the use of other drugs, such as amphetamines, which heavy cannabis users are more Likely to use. There is stronger evidence that cannabis use can exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia. Mental health services should identify patients with schizophrenia who use alcohol, cannabis and other drugs and advise them to abstain or to greatly reduce their drug use.