Routes of administration of cannabis used for nonmedical purposes and associations with patterns of drug use.

PURPOSE: Little is known regarding cannabis administration routes for nonmedical use-that is, its delivery methods (e.g., joints, water pipe, food). Therefore, we examined the prevalence rates of different cannabis delivery methods and assessed the relationship of the distinct administration routes with problematic drug use. Subgroups of cannabis users were also investigated (i.e., "pure" cannabis users, previously described as employing a harmless route of administration, and water pipe users, previously described as using a harmful route of administration). METHODS: As part of the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors, 1,763 cannabis users answered questions concerning their drug use (i.e., routes of administration, problematic cannabis use, other illicit drug use). Descriptive statistics, latent class analysis, correlations and t-tests were assessed. RESULTS: The main administration route was "joints with tobacco"; other routes of administration had prevalence rates from 23.99% to 38.23%. In addition, increasing the number of administration routes was associated with more problematic cannabis use, as well as heavier illicit drug use. Water pipes without tobacco were especially linked to heavy drug use patterns, whereas "pure" cannabis use seemed less harmful. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted that diversification in routes of administration can be associated with heavier illicit drug use. This was especially true for water pipe users, whereas "pure" cannabis users, who did not mix cannabis with tobacco, were an exception. Indeed, these results may be useful for future preventive programs, which may need to focus on those who have diversified routes of administration for cannabis.

A brief cognitive behavioural intervention for regular amphetamine users. A treatment guide.

A brief intervention using motivational and cognitive behavioural approaches to help change drug use. Also offer alternative brief interventions for clients not suited to the current approach. This manual is divided into five sections: Section 1. Context Key points from the National Drug Strategy Monograph No 51. Models of Intervention and Care for Psychostimulant Users are included to present the evidence supporting this type of intervention for regular amphetamine users.  A flow-chart to place the intervention in a treatment context. Section 2. Brief background to the study and summary of results of evaluation A brief description of how the study was developed, undertaken and evaluated. A brief description of the evaluation outcome data (detailed results will be published separately). Section 3. The intervention The CBT intervention is presented in a clear and easy to use format for practitioners. Section 4. Suggested alternative brief interventions for those not suitable for the current intervention This section provides an overview of recommendations for alternative interventions for psychostimulant users who are unsuitable for the CBT intervention (e.g. those who are not considering change, experimental users etc). Section 5. Other available resources This section lists a range of other resources that are currently available for practitioners working with psychostimulant users. This treatment guide has not been designed to stand alone. Rather, practitioners are encouraged to: 1. Acquaint themselves with the current research and clinical literature. The recently completed monograph Models of Intervention and Care for Psychostimulant Users is an excellent resource for current evidence supporting practice in this area. 2. Undertake training in CBT and motivational enhancement techniques if unfamiliar with these approaches. 3. Obtain ongoing clinical supervision.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

Adolescent substance-use assessment: methodological issues in the use of the ADAD (Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis).

During the past twenty years, various instruments have been developed for the assessment of substance use in adolescents, mainly in the United States. However, few of them have been adapted to, and validated in, French-speaking populations. Consequently, although increasing alcohol and drug use among teenagers has become a major concern, the various health and social programs developed in response to this specific problem have received little attention with regard to follow-up and outcome assessment. A standardized multidimensional assessment instrument adapted for adolescents is needed to assess the individual needs of adolescents and assign them to the most appropriate treatment setting, to provide a single measurement within and across health and social systems, and to conduct treatment outcome evaluations. Moreover, having an available instrument makes it possible to develop longitudinal and trans-cultural research studies. For this reason, a French version of the Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis (ADAD) was developed and validated at the University Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinic in Lausanne, Switzerland. This paper aims to discuss the methodological issues that we faced when using the ADAD instrument in a 4-year longitudinal study including adolescent substance users. Methodological aspects relating to the content and format of the instrument, the assessment administration and the statistical analyses are discussed.

Adolescents' beliefs about marijuana use: a comparison of regular users, past users and never/occasional users.

A questionnaire investigating adolescents' opinions and experiences regarding marijuana use was administered to 163 adolescents and young adults (96 boys and 67 girls) aged 13 to 20 (mean age = 16.8, s.d. = 1.5). Items referred to marijuana and other substances' dangerousness, representations regarding the positive and negative consequences of marijuana use. Responses were compared according to marijuana use status (classified into never/occasional use, current regular use and past regular use). Results show that adolescents' opinions differ according to their experience with marijuana use. Current regular users evaluate marijuana as less dangerous, but alcohol and heroin as more dangerous in comparison with never/occasional and past users. Current and past users are more likely to define marijuana as a medical drug and a plant used in agriculture, and less likely to define it as an illegal drug. Current and past users evaluate marijuana use as a way to cope with stress, to relax to a greater extent than do never/occasional users do. The latter attribute more negative consequences to marijuana use such as diminished driving ability and school performance and a pathway to hard drugs.

The norepinephrine transporter inhibitor reboxetine reduces stimulant effects of MDMA ("ecstasy") in humans.

This study assessed the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects of the interaction between the selective norepinephrine (NE) transporter inhibitor reboxetine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "ecstasy") in 16 healthy subjects. The study used a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design. Reboxetine reduced the effects of MDMA including elevations in plasma levels of NE, increases in blood pressure and heart rate, subjective drug high, stimulation, and emotional excitation. These effects were evident despite an increase in the concentrations of MDMA and its active metabolite 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) in plasma. The results demonstrate that transporter-mediated NE release has a critical role in the cardiovascular and stimulant-like effects of MDMA in humans.

Association between non-medical prescription drug use and personality traits among young Swiss men.

AIM: To investigate the relationships between six classes of non-medical prescription drug use (NMPDU) and five personality traits. METHODS: Representative baseline data on 5777 Swiss men around 20 years old were taken from the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors. NMPDU of opioid analgesics, sedatives/sleeping pills, anxiolytics, antidepressants, beta-blockers and stimulants over the previous 12 months was measured. Personality was assessed using the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale; attention deficit-hyperactivity (ADH) using the Adult Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder Self-Report Scale; and aggression/hostility, anxiety/neuroticism and sociability using the Zuckerman-Kuhlmann Personality Questionnaire. Logistic regression models for each personality trait were fitted, as were seven multiple logistic regression models predicting each NMPDU adjusting for all personality traits and covariates. RESULTS: Around 10.7% of participants reported NMPDU in the last 12 months, with opioid analgesics most prevalent (6.7%), then sedatives/sleeping pills (3.0%), anxiolytics (2.7%), and stimulants (1.9%). Sensation seeking (SS), ADH, aggression/hostility, and anxiety/neuroticism (but not sociability) were significantly positively associated with at least one drug class (OR varied between 1.24, 95%CI: 1.04-1.48 and 1.86, 95%CI: 1.47-2.35). Aggression/hostility, anxiety/neuroticism and ADH were significantly and positively related to almost all NMPDU. Sociability was inversely related to NMPDU of sedatives/sleeping pills and anxiolytics (OR, 0.70; 95%CI: 0.51-0.96 and OR, 0.64; 95%CI: 0.46-0.90, respectively). SS was related only to stimulant use (OR, 1.74; 95%CI: 1.14-2.65). CONCLUSION: People with higher scores for ADH, aggression/hostility and anxiety/neuroticism are at higher risk of NMPDU. Sociability appeared to protect from NMPDU of sedatives/sleeping pills and anxiolytics.

Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Frequent users of emergency departments (EDs) are a relatively small group of vulnerable patients accounting for a disproportionally high number of ED visits. Our objective is to perform a systematic review of the type and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the number of ED visits by frequent users. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and controlled and noncontrolled before-and-after studies describing interventions targeting adult frequent users of EDs. Primary outcome of interest was the reduction in ED use. We also explored costs analyses and various clinical (alcohol and drug use, psychiatric symptoms, mortality) and social (homelessness, insurance status, social security support) outcomes. RESULTS: We included 11 studies (3 randomized controlled trials, 2 controlled and 6 noncontrolled before-and-after studies). Heterogeneity in both study designs and definitions of frequent users precluded meta-analyses of the results. The most studied intervention was case management (n=7). Only 1 of 3 randomized controlled trials showed a significant reduction in ED use compared with usual care. Six of the 8 before-and-after studies reported a significant reduction in ED use, and 1 study showed a significant increase. ED cost reductions were demonstrated in 3 studies. Social outcomes such as reduction of homelessness were favorable in 3 of 3 studies, and clinical outcomes trended toward positive results in 2 of 3 studies. CONCLUSION: Interventions targeting frequent users may reduce ED use. Case management, the most frequently described intervention, reduced ED costs and seemed to improve social and clinical outcomes. It appears to be beneficial to patients and justifiable for hospitals to implement case management for frequent users in the framework of a clear and consensual definition of frequent users and standardized outcome measures.

Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largery underdiagnosed by clinicians.

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

Drug innovation, prices and health

This article tries to reconcile economic-industrial policy with health policy when dealing with biomedical innovation and welfare state sustainability. Better health accounts for an increasingly large proportion of welfare improvements. Explanation is given to the welfare losses coming from the fact than industrial and health policy tend to ignore each other. Drug s prices reflecting their relative relative effectiveness send the right signal to the industry rewarding innovation with impact on quantity and quality of life- and to the buyers of health care services.The level of drug s public reimbursement indicates the social willingness to pay of the different national health systems, not only by means of inclusion, or rejection, in the basket of services covered, but especially establishing the proportion of the price that is going to be financed publicly.Reference pricing for therapeutic equivalents as the upper limit of the social willingness to pay- and two-tiered co-payments for users (avoidable and inversely related with the incremental effectiveness of de drug) are deemed appropriate for those countries concerned at the same time with increasing their productivity and maintaining its welfare state. Profits drive R&D but not its location. There is no intrinsic contradiction between high productivity and a consolidated National Health Service (welfare state) as the European Nordic Countries are telling us every day.

Evaluation of the Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis instrument in a Swiss sample of drug abusers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate a French language version of the Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis (ADAD) instrument in a Swiss sample of adolescent illicit drug and/or alcohol users. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The participants in the study were 102 French-speaking adolescents aged 13-19 years who fitted the criteria of illicit drug or alcohol use (at least one substance--except tobacco--once a week during the last 3 months). They were recruited in hospitals, institutions and leisure places. Procedure. The ADAD was administered individually by trained psychologists. It was integrated into a broader protocol including alcohol and drug abuse DSM-IV diagnoses, the BDI-13 (Beck Depression Inventory), life events and treatment trajectories. RESULTS: The ADAD appears to show good inter-rater reliability; the subscales showed good internal coherence and the correlations between the composite scores and the severity ratings were moderate to high. Finally, the results confirmed good concurrent validity for three out of eight ADAD dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The French language version of the ADAD appears to be an adequate instrument for assessing drug use and associated problems in adolescents. Despite its complexity, the instrument has acceptable validity, reliability and usefulness criteria, enabling international and transcultural comparisons.

A high proportion of users of low-threshold facilities with needle exchange programmes in Switzerland are currently on methadone treatment: implications for new approaches in harm reduction and care.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, patients receiving methadone treatment are found in low threshold facilities (LTF), which provide needle exchange programmes in Switzerland. This paper identifies the characteristics of LTF attendees receiving methadone treatment (MT) compared with other LTF attendees (non-MT). METHODS: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2006 over five consecutive days in all LTF (n=25). Attendees were given an anonymous questionnaire, collecting information on socio-demographic indicators, drug consumption, injection, methadone treatment, and self-reported HIV and HCV status. Univariate analysis and logistic regression were performed to compare MT to non-MT. The response rate was 66% (n=1128). RESULTS: MT comprised 57.6% of the sample. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with being on MT were older age (OR: 1.38), being female (OR: 1.60), having one's own accommodation (OR: 1.56), receiving public assistance (OR: 2.29), lifetime injecting (OR: 2.26), HIV-positive status (OR: 2.00), and having consumed cocaine during the past month (OR: 1.37); MT were less likely to have consumed heroin in the past month (OR: 0.76, not significant) and visited LTF less often on a daily basis (OR: 0.59). The number of injections during the past week was not associated with MT. CONCLUSIONS: More LTF attendees were in the MT group, bringing to light an underappreciated LTF clientele with specific needs. The MT group consumption profile may reflect therapeutic failure or deficits in treatment quality and it is necessary to acknowledge this and to strengthen the awareness of LTF personnel about potential needs of MT attendees to meet their therapeutic goals.

Benchmarking therapeutic drug monitoring software: A systematic evaluation of available computer tools

Objectives: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) aims at optimizing treatment by individualizing dosage regimen based on blood concentrations measurement. Maintaining concentrations within a target range requires pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical capabilities. Bayesian calculation represents a gold standard in TDM approach but requires computing assistance. The aim of this benchmarking was to assess and compare computer tools designed to support TDM clinical activities.¦Methods: Literature and Internet were searched to identify software. Each program was scored against a standardized grid covering pharmacokinetic relevance, user-friendliness, computing aspects, interfacing, and storage. A weighting factor was applied to each criterion of the grid to consider its relative importance. To assess the robustness of the software, six representative clinical vignettes were also processed through all of them.¦Results: 12 software tools were identified, tested and ranked. It represents a comprehensive review of the available software characteristics. Numbers of drugs handled vary from 2 to more than 180, and integration of different population types is available for some programs. Nevertheless, 8 programs offer the ability to add new drug models based on population PK data. 10 computer tools incorporate Bayesian computation to predict dosage regimen (individual parameters are calculated based on population PK models). All of them are able to compute Bayesian a posteriori dosage adaptation based on a blood concentration while 9 are also able to suggest a priori dosage regimen, only based on individual patient covariates. Among those applying Bayesian analysis, MM-USC*PACK uses a non-parametric approach. The top 2 programs emerging from this benchmark are MwPharm and TCIWorks. Others programs evaluated have also a good potential but are less sophisticated or less user-friendly.¦Conclusions: Whereas 2 software packages are ranked at the top of the list, such complex tools would possibly not fit all institutions, and each program must be regarded with respect to individual needs of hospitals or clinicians. Programs should be easy and fast for routine activities, including for non-experienced users. Although interest in TDM tools is growing and efforts were put into it in the last years, there is still room for improvement, especially in terms of institutional information system interfacing, user-friendliness, capability of data storage and automated report generation.

Social and medical vulnerability factors of frequent users at the emergency department: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: Up to 5% of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) four or more times within a 12 month period represent 21% of total ED visits. In this study we sought to characterize social and medical vulnerability factors of ED frequent users (FUs) and to explore if these factors hold simultaneously. METHODS: We performed a case-control study at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patients over 18 years presenting to the ED at least once within the study period (April 2008 toMarch 2009) were included. FUs were defined as patients with four or more ED visits within the previous 12 months. Outcome data were extracted from medical records of the first ED attendance within the study period. Outcomes included basic demographics and social variables, ED admission diagnosis, somatic and psychiatric days hospitalized over 12 months, and having a primary care physician.We calculated the percentage of FUs and non-FUs having at least one social and one medical vulnerability factor. The four chosen social factors included: unemployed and/or dependence on government welfare, institutionalized and/or without fixed residence, either separated, divorced or widowed, and under guardianship. The fourmedical vulnerability factors were: ≥6 somatic days hospitalized, ≥1 psychiatric days hospitalized, ≥5 clinical departments used (all three factors measured over 12 months), and ED admission diagnosis of alcohol and/or drug abuse. Univariate and multivariate logistical regression analyses allowed comparison of two JGIM ABSTRACTS S391 random samples of 354 FUs and 354 non-FUs (statistical power 0.9, alpha 0.05 for all outcomes except gender, country of birth, and insurance type). RESULTS: FUs accounted for 7.7% of ED patients and 24.9% of ED visits. Univariate logistic regression showed that FUs were older (mean age 49.8 vs. 45.2 yrs, p=0.003),more often separated and/or divorced (17.5%vs. 13.9%, p=0.029) or widowed (13.8% vs. 8.8%, p=0.029), and either unemployed or dependent on government welfare (31.3% vs. 13.3%, p<0.001), compared to non-FUs. FUs cumulated more days hospitalized over 12 months (mean number of somatic days per patient 1.0 vs. 0.3, p<0.001; mean number of psychiatric days per patient 0.12 vs. 0.03, p<0.001). The two groups were similar regarding gender distribution (females 51.7% vs. 48.3%). The multivariate linear regression model was based on the six most significant factors identified by univariate analysis The model showed that FUs had more social problems, as they were more likely to be institutionalized or not have a fixed residence (OR 4.62; 95% CI, 1.65 to 12.93), and to be unemployed or dependent on government welfare (OR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.31 to 3.14) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to need medical care, as indicated by involvement of≥5 clinical departments over 12 months (OR 6.2; 95%CI, 3.74 to 10.15), having an ED admission diagnosis of substance abuse (OR 3.23; 95% CI, 1.23 to 8.46) and having a primary care physician (OR 1.70;95%CI, 1.13 to 2.56); however, they were less likely to present with an admission diagnosis of injury (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to combine at least one social with one medical vulnerability factor (38.4% vs. 12.1%, OR 7.74; 95% CI 5.03 to 11.93). CONCLUSIONS: FUs were more likely than non-FUs to have social and medical vulnerability factors and to have multiple factors in combination.