36 resultados para Bamberger Dom.
em BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça
Resumo:
Since the late 1990s and early 2000s, derivatives of well-known designer drugs as well as new psychoactive compounds have been sold on the illicit drug market and have led to intoxications and fatalities. The LC-MS/MS screening method presented covers 31 new designer drugs as well as cathinone, methcathinone, phencyclidine, and ketamine which were included to complete the screening spectrum. All but the last two are modified molecular structures of amphetamine, tryptamine, or piperazine. Among the amphetamine derivatives are cathinone, methcathinone, 3,4-DMA, 2,5-DMA, DOB, DOET, DOM, ethylamphetamine, MDDMA, 4-MTA, PMA, PMMA, 3,4,5-TMA, TMA-6 and members of the 2C group: 2C-B, 2C-D, 2C-H, 2C-I, 2C-P, 2C-T-2, 2C-T-4, and 2C-T-7. AMT, DPT, DiPT, MiPT, DMT, and 5MeO-DMT are contained in the tryptamine group, BZP, MDBP, TFMPP, mCPP, and MeOPP in the piperazine group. Using an Applied Biosystems LC-MS/MS API 365 TurboIonSpray it is possible to identify all 35 substances. After addition of internal standards and mixed-mode solid-phase extraction the analytes are separated using a Synergi Polar RP column and gradient elution with 1 mM ammonium formate and methanol/0.1% formic acid as mobile phases A and B. Data acquisition is performed in MRM mode with positive electro spray ionization. The assay is selective for all tested substances. Limits of detection were determined by analyzing S/N-ratios and are between 1.0 and 5.0 ng/mL. Matrix effects lie between 65% and 118%, extraction efficiencies range from 72% to 90%.
Resumo:
About half of all schizophrenic patients have a co-occurring substance use disorder, leading to poorer social and functional outcomes than obtained in non-abusing patients. To improve outcomes, integrated treatments have been designed that address the two conditions simultaneously. Results are, however, conflicting because the available effect studies are hampered by various methodological issues, among which are heterogeneous patient samples.
Resumo:
Background: Available studies vary in their estimated prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disor-der (ADHD) in substance use disorder (SUD) patients, ranging from 2 to 83%. A better understanding ofthe possible reasons for this variability and the effect of the change from DSM-IV to DSM-5 is needed.Methods: A two stage international multi-center, cross-sectional study in 10 countries, among patientsform inpatient and outpatient addiction treatment centers for alcohol and/or drug use disorder patients. Atotal of 3558 treatment seeking SUD patients were screened for adult ADHD. A subsample of 1276 subjects,both screen positive and screen negative patients, participated in a structured diagnostic interview. 5AdultsResults: Prevalence of DSM-IV and DSM-5 adult ADHD varied for DSM-IV from 5.4% (CI 95%: 2.4–8.3) forHungary to 31.3% (CI 95%:25.2–37.5) for Norway and for DSM-5 from 7.6% (CI 95%: 4.1–11.1) for Hungary to32.6% (CI 95%: 26.4–38.8) for Norway. Using the same assessment procedures in all countries and centersresulted in substantial reduction of the variability in the prevalence of adult ADHD reported in previousstudies among SUD patients (2–83% → 5.4–31.3%). The remaining variability was partly explained byprimary substance of abuse and by country (Nordic versus non-Nordic countries). Prevalence estimatesfor DSM-5 were slightly higher than for DSM-IV.Conclusions: Given the generally high prevalence of adult ADHD, all treatment seeking SUD patientsshould be screened and, after a confirmed diagnosis, treated for ADHD since the literature indicates poorprognoses of SUD in treatment seeking SUD patients with ADHD.
Resumo:
Aims To determine comorbidity patterns in treatment-seeking substance use disorder (SUD) patients with and without adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with an emphasis on subgroups defined by ADHD subtype, taking into account differences related to gender and primary substance of abuse. Design Data were obtained from the cross-sectional International ADHD in Substance use disorder Prevalence (IASP) study. Setting Forty-seven centres of SUD treatment in 10 countries. Participants A total of 1205 treatment-seeking SUD patients. Measurements Structured diagnostic assessments were used for all disorders: presence of ADHD was assessed with the Conners' Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID), the presence of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), major depression (MD) and (hypo)manic episode (HME) was assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI Plus), and the presence of borderline personality disorder (BPD) was assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II (SCID II). Findings The prevalence of DSM-IV adult ADHD in this SUD sample was 13.9%. ASPD [odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8–4.2], BPD (OR = 7.0, 95% CI = 3.1–15.6 for alcohol; OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.8–6.4 for drugs), MD in patients with alcohol as primary substance of abuse (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 2.1–7.8) and HME (OR = 4.3, 95% CI = 2.1–8.7) were all more prevalent in ADHD+ compared with ADHD− patients (P < 0.001). These results also indicate increased levels of BPD and MD for alcohol compared with drugs as primary substance of abuse. Comorbidity patterns differed between ADHD subtypes with increased MD in the inattentive and combined subtype (P < 0.01), increased HME and ASPD in the hyperactive/impulsive (P < 0.01) and combined subtypes (P < 0.001) and increased BPD in all subtypes (P < 0.001) compared with SUD patients without ADHD. Seventy-five per cent of ADHD patients had at least one additional comorbid disorder compared with 37% of SUD patients without ADHD. Conclusions Treatment-seeking substance use disorder patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are at a very high risk for additional externalizing disorders.