MDMA (Ecstasy) neurotoxicity: assessing and communicating the risks

MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) is an amphetamine analogue that produces euphoric and stimulant effects and a feeling of closeness towards others.1 and 2 For more than a decade, MDMA (colloquially known as “Ecstasy” or “E”) has been widely used by young adults as a dance-party drug. The usual recreational oral dose is 1-2 tablets (each containing about 60-120 mg of MDMA) a standard oral dose of 0·75–4·00 mg per kg in 60–80 kg people. MDMA is typically used once fortnightly or less because tolerance to the effects of MDMA develops rapidly. More frequent use requires larger doses to achieve the desired effects, but this increases the prevalence of unpleasant side-effects.3 A number of deaths have occurred as a result of malignant hyperthermia or idiosyncractic reactions to the drug, but these have been rare.4 MDMA is perceived by many users to be a safe drug.1 Few report the craving associated with opiates or cocaine3 and most MDMA users are aware of only mild and transient disruptions of functioning.3 and 5 AC Parrott and J Lasky, Ecstasy (MDMA) effects upon mood and cognition: before, during and after a Saturday night dance, Psychopharmacology 139 (1998), pp. 261–268. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (174)5 The perceived safety of MDMA is at odds with animal evidence of MDMA neurotoxicity, an increasing prevalence of hazardous patterns of use among recreational MDMA users, and emerging evidence of neurotoxicity among heavier MDMA users.

A qualitative study of Australian GPs' attitudes and practices in the diagnosis and management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

Background. The importance of general practice involvement in the care of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasing due to the rising numbers of patients who present with the disorder. It has been suggested by consensus bodies that GPs should be identifying and referring patients at the severe end of the ADHD spectrum and managing those with less severe symptoms. However, GPs' views of their role in ADHD care are unknown. Objective. Our aim was to explore the attitudes and practices of Australian GPs towards the diagnosis and management of ADHD. Methods. We conducted a series of focus groups to explore GPs' beliefs regarding the causes of ADHD, their perceived role in ADHD diagnosis and management and their views on the role of behaviour therapies and pharmacotherapies in ADHD management. The subjects were 28 GPs in six focus groups. Results. GPs in this study did not want to be the primary providers of care for patients with ADHD. Participants indicated a preference to refer the patient to medical specialists for diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, and expressed low levels of interest in becoming highly involved in ADHD care. Concerns about overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of the disorder, diagnostic complexity, time constraints, insufficient education and training about the disorder, and concerns regarding misuse and diversion of stimulant medications were the reasons cited for their lack of willingness. Conclusions. The Australian GPs in this study identify a role for themselves in ADHD care which is largely supportive in nature, and involves close liaison with specialist services.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To analyze from a health sector perspective the cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine (DEX) and methylphenidate (MPH) interventions to treat childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared to current practice. Method: Children eligible for the interventions are those aged between 4 and 17 years in 2000, who had ADHD and were seeking care for emotional or behavioural problems, but were not receiving stimulant medication. To determine health benefit, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed for DEX and MPH, and the effect sizes were translated into utility values. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Simulation modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated in cost (in A$) per DALY averted. Results: The ICER for DEX is A$4100/DALY saved (95% UI: negative to A$14 000) and for MPH is A$15 000/DALY saved (95% UI: A$9100-22 000). DEX is more costly than MPH for the government, but much less costly for the patient. Conclusions: MPH and DEX are cost-effective interventions for childhood ADHD. DEX is more cost-effective than MPH, although if MPH were listed at a lower price on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme it would become more cost-effective. Increased uptake of stimulants for ADHD would require policy change. However, the medication of children and wider availability of stimulants may concern parents and the community.

Cardiostimulant effects of urotensin-II in human heart in vitro

The effects of the recently identified human peptide urotensin-II (hU-II) were investigated on human cardiac muscle contractility and coronary artery tone. In right atrial trabeculae from non-failing hearts, hU-II caused a concentration-dependent increase in contractile force (pEC(50)=9.5+/-0.1; E-max= 31.3+/-4.8% compared to 9.25 mM Ca2+; n = 9) with no change in contraction duration. In right ventricular trabeculae from explanted hearts, 20 nM hU-II caused a small increase in contractile force (7.8+/-1.4% compared to 9.25 mM Ca2+; n= 3/6 tissues from 2 out of 4 patients). The peptide caused arrhythmic contractions in 3/26 right atrial trabeculae from 3/9 patients in an experimental model of arrhythmia and therefore has less potential to cause arrhythmias than ET-1. hU-II (20 nM) increased tone (17.9% of the response to 90 mM KCI) in 7/7 tissues from 1 patient, with no response detected in 8/8 tissues from 2 patients. hU-II is a potent cardiac stimulant with low efficacy.

Subtypes of Illicit Drug Users: A Latent Class Analysis of Data From an Australian Twin Sample

This article applies methods of latent class analysis (LCA) to data on lifetime illicit drug use in order to determine whether qualitatively distinct classes of illicit drug users can be identified. Self-report data on lifetime illicit drug use (cannabis, stimulants, hallucinogens, sedatives, inhalants, cocaine, opioids and solvents) collected from a sample of 6265 Australian twins (average age 30 years) were analyzed using LCA. Rates of childhood sexual and physical abuse, lifetime alcohol and tobacco dependence, symptoms of illicit drug abuse/dependence and psychiatric comorbidity were compared across classes using multinomial logistic regression. LCA identified a 5-class model: Class 1 (68.5%) had low risks of the use of all drugs except cannabis; Class 2 (17.8%) had moderate risks of the use of all drugs; Class 3 (6.6%) had high rates of cocaine, other stimulant and hallucinogen use but lower risks for the use of sedatives or opioids. Conversely, Class 4 (3.0%) had relatively low risks of cocaine, other stimulant or hallucinogen use but high rates of sedative and opioid use. Finally, Class 5 (4.2%) had uniformly high probabilities for the use of all drugs. Rates of psychiatric comorbidity were highest in the polydrug class although the sedative/opioid class had elevated rates of depression/suicidal behaviors and exposure to childhood abuse. Aggregation of population-level data may obscure important subgroup differences in patterns of illicit drug use and psychiatric comorbidity. Further exploration of a 'self-medicating' subgroup is needed.

An n-of-1 trial service in clinical practice: Testing the effectiveness of stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE. We sought to describe the clinical use of n-of-1 trials for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in publicly and privately funded family and specialized pediatric practice in Australia. METHODS. We used a within-patient randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of stimulant (dexamphetamine or methylphenidate) versus placebo or alternative stimulant using 3 pairs of treatment periods. Trials were conducted from a central location using mail and telephone communication, with local supervision by the patients' clinicians. PATIENTS. Our study population included children with clinically diagnosed attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who were aged 5 to 16 years and previously stabilized on an optimal dose of stimulant. They were selected because treatment effectiveness was uncertain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. Our measures included number of patients recruited, number of doctors who used the service, geographic spread, completion rates, response rate, and post-n-of-1 trial decisions. RESULTS. Forty-five doctors across Australia requested 108 n-of-1 trials, of which 86 were completed. In 69 drug-versus-placebo comparisons, 29 children responded better to stimulant than placebo. Immediately posttrial, 19 of 25 drug-versus-placebo responders stayed on the same stimulant, and 13 of 24 nonresponders ceased or switched stimulants. In 40 of 63 for which data were available, posttrial management was consistent with the trial results. For all types of n-of-1 trials, management changed for 28 of 64 children for whom information was available. DISCUSSION. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder n-of-1 trials can be implemented successfully by mail and telephone communication. This type of trial can be valuable in clarifying treatment effect when it is uncertain, and in this series, they had a noticeable impact on short-term management.