Real world clinical outcomes of treatment of cannabis-induced psychosis and prevalence of cannabis-related primary psychosis: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment of cannabis-induced psychosis (CIP) focus on the presenting symptoms of individual patient. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of pharmacological treatment for CIP in a retrospective manner. METHODS: A retrospective chart review study was conducted at the Princess Mother National Institute on Drug Abuse Treatment (PMNIDAT), Thailand. Patients aged more than 12 years who met the International Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) criteria of CIP, had recorded of cannabis use in medical chart, and had positive urine test of cannabis on the first day of admission from October 2013 to September 2019 were enrolled. The primary outcome was the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of CIP. Brief Psychotic Rating Scale (BPRS) on the first day and weekly after receiving treatment were used to assess the primary outcome. RESULTS: Four hundred and three medical charts with diagnosis of CIP were enrolled into the study and only 317 charts were analyzed. Most of them were male with an average aged of 21.0 (19.0-24.0) years old. All of them used smoked cannabis from dried leaves and flowers of cannabis plant. The presented symptoms on admission were psychosis, mood symptoms, sleep problems, weight loss, and cognitive problems (100%, 64%, 61%, 11%, and 7%, respectively). Baseline BPRS score of the first day of admission was 55.2 ± 9.6. Majority of patients received antipsychotic (98.7%) followed by the combination of antipsychotics with benzodiazepines (34.5.%), antipsychotics with antidepressants (14.4%) and antipsychotics treatment with antidepressants and benzodiazepines (25.9%). Only few patients received antipsychotic monotherapy (17.9%). Risperidone was the most frequently prescribed antipsychotics (83.6%). Mean equivalence dose of risperidone was 8.0 ± 5.9 mg/day. The average hospital length of stay was 28 days (range 22-31). BPRS at 22 days significantly improved compared to the first day of admission (p < 0.001). Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 7% at 1.3 years of follow up. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics was still a key psychotropic drug for treatment of CIP. The symptoms were decreased rapidly and sustained among the treatment period. However, antidepressants and benzodiazepines were commonly used for treatment of other symptoms beyond psychosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04945031 (Registration Date: 30 June, 2021).

Treatment for inhalant dependence and abuse.

BACKGROUND: Inhalants are being abused by large numbers of people throughout the world, particularly socio-economically disadvantaged children and adolescents. The neuropsychological effects of acute and chronic inhalant abuse include motor impairment, alterations in spontaneous motor activity, anticonvulsant effects, anxiolytic effects, sensory effects, and effects and learning, memory and operant behaviour (e.g., response rates and discriminative stimulus effects). OBJECTIVES: To search and determine risks, benefits and costs of a variety treatments for inhalant dependence or abuse. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966 - February 2010), EMBASE (Januray 2010) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (February 2010). We also searched for ongoing clinical trials and unpublished studies via Internet searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised-controlled trials and controlled clinical trails (CCTs) comparing any intervention in people with inhalant dependence or abuse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria have been retrieved. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: due to the lack of studies meeting the inclusion criteria, no conclusion can be drawn for clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: as a common substance abuse with serious health consequences, treatment of inhalant dependence and abuse should be a priority area of substance abuse research.

A randomized trial of low-dose gabapentin for post hospitalization relapse prevention in a Thai clinical sample of alcohol dependence.

Pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorder show a modest effect, and they are unavailable in certain countries. The study's aim is to investigate the effects of gabapentin on alcohol drinking. One hundred twelve Thai individuals with alcohol dependence and very high alcohol consumption were randomly assigned to either of two groups: gabapentin treatment or placebo. Oral treatment with at least 300 mg of gabapentin per day or placebo was administered once a day for twelve weeks. The alcohol drinking pattern was assessed by means of the timeline followback method. The drinking behaviours of the two groups were compared by means of the Poisson repeated measures model and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analysis. Twenty subjects (35.7%) from the gabapentin group and 14 subjects (25.0%) from the placebo group completed the study protocol. The participants in the gabapentin group did not differ from those in the placebo group with respect to demographics or baseline alcohol drinking behaviour. After follow-up, the gabapentin group showed a lower percentage of heavy drinking days per week than the placebo group (p < 0.005). GEE analysis showed treatment by time interaction on lowering drinking days within a week (p < 0.05). In conclusion, gabapentin may be used to reduce alcohol-drinking behaviours.

Treatment of methamphetamine-induced psychosis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing haloperidol and quetiapine.

RATIONALE: To our knowledge, only a few double-blind randomized controlled trials with antipsychotic drugs have been conducted to examine the treatment of methamphetamine-induced psychosis (MAP). OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are to compare the antipsychotic and adverse events of quetiapine, an atypical antipsychotic drug, to haloperidol, a standard treatment for primary psychotic disorder, in individuals with MAP. METHODS: Eighty individuals with MAP were randomly assigned into two groups, i.e. treatment with quetiapine (n = 36) and haloperidol (n = 44). Sixty-eight patients (85 %) completed the study protocol, i.e. treatment with quetiapine at least 100 mg per day or haloperidol at least 2 mg per day orally once a day for 4 weeks. The doses were increased every 5 days until no psychotic symptom was observed from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Data were analysed by survival analysis with Cox's proportional regression analysis, general estimating equations and log-rank tests. RESULTS: Thirty-two (89 %) subjects from the quetiapine group and 37 subjects (84 %) from the haloperidol group met the remission criteria at the end of the study. Baseline PANSS total scores of quetiapine and haloperidol groups were 82.4 ± 16.6 and 90.0 ± 18.4, respectively (mean ± SD; p = 0.06). The change-from-baseline scores were -47.8 for the quetiapine group and -53.2 for the haloperidol group. There were no significant differences between the antipsychotic effects (coefficient value = -2.6, p = 0.32, 95%CI = -7.6, 2.5) and the adverse effects of quetiapine and haloperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine may be used as an antipsychotic treatment for MAP with comparable therapeutic effects and adverse events to treatment with classical antipsychotic drugs.