Injecting risk behaviour among recently released prisoners in Edinburgh: The impact of in-prison and community drug treatment services

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Shewan ◽  
Margaret Reid ◽  
Sandy MacPherson ◽  
John B. Davies ◽  
Judy Greenwood
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 371.1-371
Author(s):  
A. Koltakova ◽  
A. Lila ◽  
L. P. Ananyeva ◽  
A. Fedenko

Background:Pts with cancer may have MD that can be caused by neoplastic/paraneoplastic disease, rheumatic diseases or be induced by anticancer drug treatment. There is no data about MD influence on the QoL of cancer patients. The EORTC QoL questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 is a valid questionnaire designed to assess different aspects (Global health (GH), Functional (FS) and symptoms (SS) scales) that define the QoL of cancer patients [1].Objectives:The objective of the study was to assess the impact of drug induced and other types of MD on the QoL of cancer patients that received anticancer drug treatment by using of EORTC QLQ-C30 v3.0.Methods:The sampling of 123 pts (M/F – 40/83; mean age 54.4±12.8) with breast (32,5%), gastrointestinal (17%), ovary (8%), lung (7%) and other cancer was observed by rheumatologist in the oncology outpatient clinic. All pts received anticancer drug treatment: chemotherapy (104 pts), target therapy (16 pts) checkpoint-inhibitors (14 pts), hormone therapy (13 pts) in different combinations. 102(82.9%) of 123pts had MD include arthritis (12 pts), synovitis (5 pts), arthralgia (66 pts), periarthritis (34 pts), osteodynia (13 pts). There were 58 pts (group 1; M/F – 14/44; mean age 52.5±12.2) with anticancer drug treatment induced MD and 44 pts (group 2; M/F – 16/27; mean age 57.6±13.5) with other type of MD include 26 pts with skeletal metastasis. The were 21 pts (group 3; M/F – 10/11; mean age 52.9±11.1) without MD. All pts fulfilled EORTC QLQ-C30 v3.0 (tab.1).Table 1.The median [Q1;Q3] of results of GH, SS and SS of EORTC QLQ-C30ScaleSubscaleGroup1Group2Group3GH58.3[50;58]58.3[41.7;83.3]50[50;66.7]FS*Physical functioning73.3[60;86.7]73.3[66.7;86.7]86.7[80;93]Role functioning66.7[66.7;100]83.3[50;100]100[83;100]Emotional functioning83.3[66.7;100]75[66.7;91.7]91.6[83.3;100]Social functioning83.3[66.7;100]83.3[50;100]100[83.3;100]SS*Pain33.3[0;50]16.7[0;33.3]0[0;16.7]*There are only the scores that had got a statistical difference between the groups.Kruskal-Wallis H and post-hoc (Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner (DSCF) pairwise comparisons) tests for data analysis were performed.Results:A Kruskal-Wallis H test has shown a statistically significant difference in physical (χ2(2)=7.54; p=0.023), role (χ2(2)=9.87; p=0.007), emotion (χ2(2)=7.69; p=0.021) functioning and pain (χ2(2)=8.44; p=0.015) scores between the different groups. A post-hoc test with DSCF pairwise comparisons of median has shown a statistically significant difference between 1 and 3 groups (W=3.904; p=0.016) for physical functioning, between 2 and 3 groups (W=3.35; p=0.004) for role functioning, between 2 and 3 groups (W=4.03; p=0.012) for emotional functioning, between 1 and 3 groups (W=-3.97; p=0.014) for pain scale.Conclusion:The study has shown that MD associated with anticancer drug treatment adversely affected the QoL of cancer patients received anticancer drug treatment by reducing a physical functioning and by increasing pain scores. Presence of other types of MD adversely affect the QoL by reducing emotional and role functioning.References:[1]Aaronson NK,et al.The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst.1993;85(5):365-376. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365Disclosure of Interests:None declared


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e044696
Author(s):  
Nadine Ezard ◽  
Brendan Clifford ◽  
Adrian Dunlop ◽  
Raimondo Bruno ◽  
Andrew Carr ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo examine the safety of an agonist-type treatment, lisdexamfetamine (LDX), at 250 mg/day among adults with methamphetamine (MA) dependence.DesignA dose-escalating, phase-2, open-label, single-group study of oral LDX at two Australian drug treatment services.SettingThe study was conducted at two Australian stimulant use disorder treatment clinics.ParticipantsThere were 16 participants: at least 18 years old, MA dependent for at least the preceding 2 years using ICD-10 criteria, reporting use of MA on at least 14 of the preceding 28 days.InterventionsDaily, supervised LDX of 100–250 mg, single-blinded to dose, ascending-descending regimen over 8 weeks (100–250 mg over 4 weeks; followed by 4-week dose reduction regimen, 250–100 mg). Participants were followed through to week 12.OutcomesPrimary outcomes were safety, drug tolerability and regimen completion at the end of week 4. Participants were followed to week 12. Secondary outcomes included: change in MA use; craving; withdrawal; severity of dependence; risk behaviour; change in other substance use; medication acceptability; potential for non-prescription use; adherence and neurocognitive functioning.ResultsFourteen of 16 participants (87.5%) completed escalation to 250 mg/day. Two participants withdrew from the trial in the first week: one relocated away from the study site, the other self-withdrew due to a possible, known side effect of LDX (agitation). There was one serious adverse event of suicidal ideation which resolved. All other adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and known side effects of LDX. No participant was withdrawn due to adverse events. MA use decreased from a median of 21 days (IQR: 16–23) to 13 days (IQR: 11–17) over the 4-week escalation period (p=0.013).ConclusionsLDX at a dose of up to 250 mg/day was safe and well tolerated by study participants, warranting larger trials as a pharmacotherapy for MA dependence.Trial registration numberACTRN12615000391572.


2020 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 107968
Author(s):  
Eliza Skelton ◽  
Ashleigh Guillaumier ◽  
Sarah Lambert ◽  
Kerrin Palazzi ◽  
Billie Bonevski

2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 286-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Beynon ◽  
M. A. Bellis ◽  
T. Millar ◽  
P. Meier ◽  
R. Thomson ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOANNE BRYANT ◽  
MELISSA SAXTON ◽  
ANNIE MADDEN ◽  
NICKY BATH ◽  
SUZANNE ROBINSON

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document