Drug use in Australian nightlife settings: estimation of prevalence and validity of self-report

AIMS: This study aimed to 1) estimate the prevalence of illicit drug use in night-time entertainment districts across five major cities in Australia; and 2) validate self-reported drug use using biochemical marker oral swabs. DESIGN: Street intercept surveys and oral drug swabs conducted over a seven-month period during 2011-2012. SETTING: The night-time entertainment districts of three metropolitan cities (Sydney, Melbourne and Perth) and two regional cities (Wollongong and Geelong) in Australia, between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am. PARTICIPANTS: 7,340 individuals agreed to participate in the survey (a 93% response rate). More than half (62%) of the sample was male, with a median age of 22 years (range 18-73). MEASUREMENTS: Patrons were approached in thoroughfares, and while entering and leaving licensed venues. Data collected included demographics and current session alcohol and other substance use. Drug swabs (n = 401) were performed with a sub-sample of participants. FINDINGS: Approximately 9% (95% CI, 7% to 12%) of participants self-reported consumption of illicit or non-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs prior to interview; of those, 81% identified psychostimulants as the drug used. One in five drug swabs returned a positive result, with psychostimulants the most commonly detected drugs (15%; 95% CI, 12%-19%). Kappa statistics indicate agreement between self-report of any illicit drug and a positive drug swab is in the slight range (κ = 0.12 (95% CI, .05 to .20) p = .000). CONCLUSIONS: Self-report findings suggest drug use in the nightlife in Australia is common, though still very much a minority past-time. Drug swabs indicate a higher prevalence of use (20%) than self-report (9%), which suggests that self-reported drug use may not be reliable in this context. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Stimulants for depression: on the up and up?

The use of traditional psychostimulants (methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) and stimulant-like drugs (modafinil and armodafinil) for the treatment of depression is a growing concern given the lack of research evidence supporting their effectiveness. The current article describes the role of stimulants in treating depression--specifically their risks and benefits and their potential use alongside antidepressants. Clinically, the rapid amelioration of depressive symptoms with traditional psychostimulants is often dramatic but short-lived, and this suggests that they likely operate via different mechanisms to conventional antidepressants. More importantly, there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials supporting their efficacy in treating depression, although modafinil has been shown to be effective in reducing prominent depressive symptoms, such as fatigue. Research is urgently required to clarify psychostimulants' mechanisms of action and to evaluate their long-term benefits and risks in the treatment of major and bipolar depression. Ultimately, specificity of action needs to be determined to inform the sophisticated clinical use of psychostimulants in the management of depression. Until then they should only be prescribed if absolutely necessary, and even then their prescription should be facilitatory and time limited unless it is for investigational purposes.