Benzodiazepine use of community-based violent offenders : a preliminary investigation

Objective: To explore the relationship between benzodiazepine use and violent crime in a sample of community-based offenders. Methods: Participants were recruited via drug diversion and treatment programs in Melbourne, Australia. Data regarding benzodiazepine and other substance use, mental health, personality characteristics, and crime involvement were collected through semistructured interviews conducted in 2011. Participants (n = 82, 79.3% male) were 21–56 years old, predominantly Australian-born (89%), with 14.6% identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. Eligibility criteria were having been charged with a criminal offence in the previous six months and at least monthly benzodiazepine use. Group differences between violent (n = 11) and nonviolent offenders were assessed via independent samples t-tests (two-tailed) and nonparametric tests. Results: Individuals charged with violent index offences were significantly more likely to use higher average doses of alprazolam (p = 0.040) and exhibit benzodiazepine dependence (p = 0.037) as well as report high levels of sensation seeking, prior violence, and the diagnoses of depression and personality disorder than individuals charged with nonviolent index offences. Conclusions: The findings suggest the existence of a complex dynamic between mental health and violent offending that may be influenced by benzodiazepine use, in particular alprazolam. A core implication of these preliminary findings includes attending to the interpersonal skills and adaptive coping resources of violent offenders.

Patient satisfaction with treatment for alcohol use disorders: comparing patients with and without severe mental health symptoms

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest patients with co-occurring alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and severe mental health symptoms (SMHS) are less satisfied with standard AUD treatment when compared to patients with an AUD alone. This study compared patient satisfaction with standard AUD treatment among patients with and without SMHS and explored how standard treatment might be improved to better address the needs of these patients.

METHODS: Eighty-nine patients receiving treatment for an AUD either at an inpatient hospital, outpatient clinic, inpatient detoxification, or residential/therapeutic community services were surveyed. Patient satisfaction with treatment was assessed using the Treatment Perception Questionnaire (range: 0-40). Patients were stratified according to their score on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale. Forty patients scored in the extremely severe range of depression (score >14) and/or anxiety (score >10) (indicating SMHS) and 49 patients did not. An inductive content analysis was also conducted on qualitative data relating to areas of service improvement.

RESULTS: Patients with SMHS were found to be equally satisfied with treatment (mean =25.10, standard deviation =8.12) as patients with an AUD alone (mean =25.43, standard deviation =6.91). Analysis revealed that being an inpatient in hospital was associated with reduced treatment satisfaction. Patients with SMHS were found to be significantly less satisfied with staffs' understanding of the type of help they wanted in treatment, when compared to patients with AUDs alone. Five areas for service improvement were identified, including staff qualities, informed care, treatment access and continuity, issues relating to inpatient stay, and addressing patients' mental health needs.

CONCLUSION: While findings suggest that AUD treatment services adequately meet the needs of patients with SMHS in treatment, patients with SMHS do feel that staff lack understanding of their treatment needs. Findings have important implications as to how current health care practice might be improved according to the patient's perspective of care.

Intranasal naloxone for the treatment of suspected heroin overdose

AIMS: This paper reviews available literature regarding the effectiveness, safety and utility of intranasal (i.n.) naloxone for the treatment of heroin overdose.

METHODS: Scientific literature in the form of published articles during the period January 1984 to August 2007 were identified by searching several databases including Medline, Cinahl and Embase for the following terms: naloxone, narcan, intranasal, nose. The data extracted included study design, patient selection, numbers, outcomes and adverse events.

RESULTS: Reports of the pharmacological investigation and administration of i.n. naloxone for heroin overdose are included in this review. Treatment of heroin overdose by administration of i.n. naloxone has been introduced as first-line treatment in some jurisdictions in North America, and is currently under investigation in Australia.

CONCLUSION: Currently there is not enough evidence to support i.n. naloxone as first-line intervention by paramedics for treatment of heroin overdose in the pre-hospital setting. Further research is required to confirm its clinical effectiveness, safety and utility. If proved effective, the i.n. route may be useful for drug administration in community settings (including peer-based administration), as it reduces risk of needlestick injury in a population at higher risk of blood-borne viruses. Problematically, naloxone is not manufactured currently in an ideal form for i.n. administration.

Impact of oral dexamethasone versus placebo after ED treatment of migraine with phenothiazines on the rate of recurrent headache: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests that the rate of recurrent headache after treatment of migraine in the emergency department (ED) is high. The mechanisms for this are unclear, but neurogenic inflammation may play a role. There is conflicting evidence about whether adjuvant dexamethasone reduces the rate of recurrent headache. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of recurrent headache in patients with migraine randomised to receive a single dose of oral dexamethasone or placebo at discharge after treatment in the ED with intravenous phenothiazine.

METHODS: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in the ED of three community teaching hospitals. Adult patients with physician-diagnosed migraine were treated with intravenous phenothiazine and at discharge were randomised to receive either 8 mg oral dexamethasone or placebo as a single dose. Follow-up was by telephone at 48-72 h and the proportion of patients with recurrent headache overall and in the subgroup with headache duration <24 h was recorded.

RESULTS: 63 patients (76% women) of median age 39 years were enrolled, 61 of whom (97%) completed follow-up. The pooled rate of recurrent headache was 33%. 32 were randomised to placebo and 31 to dexamethasone. The rate of recurrent headache in the dexamethasone and control groups was 27% (8/30) vs 39% (12/31) (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.45, p = 0.47). For 40 patients with headache lasting <24 h the rate of recurrent headache in the dexamethasone and control groups was 15% (3/20) vs 45% (9/20), a reduction in absolute risk of 30% (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.05, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of dexamethasone following phenothiazine treatment for migraine in the ED did not reduce the rate of recurrent headache. There is weak evidence for a possible benefit in the subgroup who present within <24 h of symptom onset. A multicentre trial to confirm this finding is warranted.