Drug use patterns and mental health of regular amphetamine users during a reported 'heroin drought'

Aims The present study extends the findings of a pilot study conducted among regular amphetamine users in Newcastle, NSW, in 1998. It compares key features between current participants in a state capital city (Brisbane) and a regional city (Newcastle) and between the 1998 and current Newcastle sample. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Brisbane and Newcastle, Australia. Participants The survey was conducted among 214 regular amphetamine users within the context of a randomized controlled trial of brief interventions for amphetamine use. Measurements Demographic characteristics, past and present alcohol and other drug use and mental health, treatment, amphetamine-related harms and severity of dependence. Findings The main findings were as follows: (i) the rate of mental health problems was high among regular amphetamine users and these problems commonly emerged after commencement of regular amphetamine use; (ii) there were regional differences in drug use with greater accessibility to a wider range of drugs in a state capital city and greater levels of injecting risk-taking behaviour outside the capital city environment; and (iii) there was a significant increase in level of amphetamine use and percentage of alcohol users, a trend for a higher level of amphetamine dependence and a significant reduction in the percentage of people using heroin and benzodiazepines among the 2002 Newcastle cohort compared to the 1998 cohort. Conclusions Further longitudinal research is needed to elucidate transitions from one drug type to another and from recreational to injecting and regular use and the relationship between drug use and mental health in prospective studies among users. Implications Intervention research should evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at: preventing transition to injecting and regular use of amphetamines; toward reducing levels of depression among amphetamine users and interventions among people with severe psychopathology and personality disorders; and toward reducing the prevalence of tobacco dependence among amphetamine users.

Pharmacological treatment and perceived health status during 1-year follow up in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease, but ineligible for revascularization. Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization

Background It has been recognized that a clinically significant portion of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) continue to experience anginal and other related symptoms that are refractory to the combination of medical therapy and revascularization. The Euro Heart Survey on Revascularization (EHSCR) provided an opportunity to assess pharmacological treatment and outcome in patients with proven CAD who were ineligible for revascularization. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of EHS-CR data. After excluding patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and those in whom revascularization was not indicated, 4409 patients remained in the analyses. We selected two groups: (1) patients in whom revascularization was the preferred treatment option (n = 3777, 86%), and (2) patients who were considered ineligible for revascularization (n = 632, 14%). Results Patient ineligible for revascularization had a worse risk profile, more often had a total occlusion (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), were treated more often with ACE-inhibitors (65% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) but less likely with aspirin (83% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). Overall, they had higher case-fatality at 1-year (7.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Regarding self-perceived health status, measured via the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, these same patients reported more problems on all dimensions of the EQ-5D. Furthermore, in the revascularization group we observed an increase between discharge and 1-year follow up (utility score from 0.85 to 1.00) whereas patients ineligible for revascularization did not improve over time (utility score remained 0.80) Conclusion In this large cohort of European patients with CAD, those considered ineligible for revascularization had more co-morbidities and risk factors, and scored worse on self-perceived health status as compared to revascularized patients in the revascularization group. With the exception of ACE-inhibitors and aspirin, there were no major differences regarding drug treatment between the two groups. Given these clinically significant observations, there appears to be a role for nurse-led, multidisciplinary, rehabilitation teams that target clinically vulnerable patients whose symptoms remain refractory to standard medical care.