Hexahydrocannabinol poisoning reported to French poison centres.

INTRODUCTION: Hexahydrocannabinol is a hexahydro derivative of cannabinol. Poisoning with hexahydrocannabinol was first observed in Europe in May 2022. METHOD: This is a retrospective observational study of cases of self-reported hexahydrocannabinol exposure reported to French poison centres between 1 January 2022 and 31 May 2023. RESULTS: There were 37 cases, including 19 in May 2023. The median age of the patients was 36 (interquartile range 28-43) years, and most were men. Eight patients had a history of substance use disorder. The route of exposure was ingestion in 24, inhalation (smoking or vaping) in 10, inhalation and ingestion in two and sublingual in one. Clinical features were neurological (85 per cent), cardiovascular (61 per cent), gastrointestinal (33 per cent), psychiatric (27 per cent) and ocular (21 per cent). Fifty-nine per cent of the patients were hospitalized. In four patients, the Poisoning Severity Score was 0 (asymptomatic); in 15 patients, the Score was 1 (minor); in 16, the Score was 2 (moderate); and in two cases, the Score was 3 (severe). In 70 per cent of patients, the outcome was known, and all recovered. Testing of biological samples was only undertaken in six cases. Five patients had positive blood or urine tests for hexahydrocannabinol; in two patients, tetrahydrocannabinol and metabolites were also detected. In addition, there was an additional patient in whom Δ8- and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol was detected in the substances used. DISCUSSION: Clinical effects reported in this series included neuropsychiatric and somatic effects. Whilst these cases related to self-reported hexahydrocannabinol use, it is likely that tetrahydrocannabinol use also contributed to the effects in a substantial proportion of cases. This study has some limitations, such as the lack of available information due to the retrospective nature of the study. As a result, it probably overestimates the number of moderate and severe cases due to under-reporting of cases of little or no severity. Analysis of the patient's blood and urine was performed only in six patients, so we cannot be certain that the products consumed by the other patients were hexahydrocannabinol. CONCLUSION: The clinical effects attributed to hexahydrocannabinol were neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, psychiatric and ocular predominantly and were sometimes serious.

Psychoactive substance use among students: A cross-sectional analysis.

Little is known about psychoactive substance use in students, apart from tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis. This study investigated the prevalence of substance use and overlap between various psychoactive substances in students. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 10 066 students included in the i-Share cohort between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The baseline questionnaire was the key source of information. Psychoactive substances of interest (PSI) were cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, nitrous oxide, poppers, and MDMA. Their patterns of use were categorized as lifetime, past year, and current use. The use of other psychoactive substances including alcohol and tobacco was described in PSI users and non-users. Most participants were female (75%), and their average age was 21 years. Lifetime use of at least one PSI was reported by 65.5% of participants. Cannabis was the most frequently used substance both over lifetime (57% of students) and past year (35%), followed by poppers and nitrous oxide (28% and 26% of students over lifetime, respectively). Among polydrug users (n = 1242), 65% used only nitrous oxide and poppers, showing a strong link between these two substances. Regular alcohol use, binge drinking, and current tobacco use were higher in PSI users than in non-users. Substance use was higher than previously found in both French and European studies in young people. Nitrous oxide use was particularly high. Regular alcohol use, binge drinking, and tobacco use could be used as markers to identify students at risk of PSI use to be targeted by prevention programs.

[Ketamine use in outpatients: What can we learn from current practices?] / Utilisation de la kétamine chez les patients ambulatoires : que pouvons-nous apprendre des pratiques actuelles ?

INTRODUCTION: Two off-label use of ketamine are framed by recommendations: in intractable pain in palliative situations or in postoperative pain. Ketamine is used in hospital but can also be used outside hospital with dispensations by hospital pharmacy to outpatients. Few data are available on ketamine use outside hospital. In this context, the French Addictovigilance Network has set up a study with hospital pharmacies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This survey assesses ketamine dispensations from 1 January to 30 April 2019, for patients who have an administration of ketamine outside hospital. RESULTS: Sixty-five (65) hospital pharmacies have dispensed ketamine for 553 patients. Ketamine was indicated within non-palliative care in 86% of cases. Most of non-cancer pain were in fibromyalgia (44%) and neuropathic pain (29%). During the 4-month monitoring period, 1352 dispensations were analysed. The frequency of administration is daily in 91% of cases within palliative care whereas it is much more diverse within non-palliative care (33% daily, more than 15 different frequency in fibromyalgia). Within palliative care, ketamine is most administered intravenously or by Patient Controlled Analgesia or syringe pump (78% of cases) whereas in non-palliative care, ketamine is most used subcutaneously (44%), orally (32%) or both subcutaneously and orally (20%). A large number of ampoules could be dispensed (more than 30 ampoules for 10% of dispensations). CONCLUSION: These data highlighted that recommendation in pain are not respected because most of ketamine is used within non-palliative care context and it should be noted a great heterogeneity of practice. This study underlines the urgency of targeted and clear information on certain off-label uses of ketamine for which no robust clinical studies are available and for which the risk of health complications like psychiatric (addiction), urologic and hepatologic complications is proven.

Mapping of drug-related problems among older adults conciliating medical and pharmaceutical approaches.

PURPOSE: To lay the fundamentals of drug-related problems (DRPs) in older adults, and to organize them according to a logical process conciliating medical and pharmaceutical approaches, to better identify the causes and consequences of DRPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A narrative overview. RESULTS: The causes of DRPs may be intentional or unintentional. They lie in poor prescription, poor adherence, medication errors (MEs) and substance use disorders (SUD). Poor prescription encompasses sub-optimal or off-label drug choice; this choice is either intentional or unintentional, often within a polypharmacy context and not taking sufficiently into account the patient's clinical condition. Poor adherence is often the consequence of a complicated administration schedule. This review shows that MEs are not the most frequent causes of DRPs. SUD are little studied in older adults and needs to be more investigated because the use of psychoactive substances among older people is frequent. Prescribers, pharmacists, nurses, patients, and caregivers all play a role in different causes of DRPs. The potential deleterious outcomes of DRPs result from adverse drug reactions and therapeutic failures. These can lead to a negative benefit-risk ratio for a given treatment regimen. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary pharmacotherapy programs show significant clinical impacts in preventing or resolving adverse drug events and, suboptimal responses. New technologies also seem to be interesting solutions to prevent MEs. Better communication between healthcare professionals, patients and their caregivers would ensure greater safety and effectiveness of treatments.

Parachuting psychoactive substances: Pharmacokinetic clues for harm reduction.

BACKGROUND: Parachuting, also called bombing, is a way to ingest psychoactive substances wrapped into cigarette paper, toilet paper, etc. There is little data describing parachuting in terms of substances use, context of use and, most importantly, the motivations for using such wrappers, although some authors hypothesized that parachute could be used for pharmacokinetic reason. However, inconsistently, some authors report that parachutes are used for sustained-release whereas others report that users are looking for an immediate effect. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Considering parachute as a "home-made" dosage form, we have applied the dissolution testing to characterize the dissolution performance of a substance wrapped into a parachute and to characterize whether a parachute represents an immediate-release form or not. RESULTS: This in-vitro study provides the first pharmacokinetic data for drugs wrapped in parachutes. It shows that parachute acts as sustained-release form when made with a cigarette paper wrapper, but as immediate release form in the presence of alcohol or if wrapped with toilet paper. CONCLUSIONS: An important message to harm reduction is that users must be aware that a parachute can have unexpected pharmacokinetics and have to avoid taking another parachute in the absence of an immediate-effect to avoid overdose.

Illicit drugs or medicines taken by parachuting.

Parachuting (also called bombing) is a method of drug delivery where illicit drugs or medicines are ingested after wrapping the substance. There are little data describing parachuting in the literature. To provide a description of this practice, all cases of parachuting reported to the national addictovigilance network up to 31 December 2014 were identified from spontaneous reports and specific surveillance programs. Cases were described according to the type of substance used, patient age and gender, type of complications, context of use and year of the event. Forty-five cases of parachute use were identified and most (n = 43) occurred after 2011. Patients were mostly men (60%), and mean age was 28.9 years. The context of use, known in 19 cases, was mostly recreational. Complications were present in 24 cases, of which eight were serious. The substance was supposed to be 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in the majority of cases (64.4%); research chemicals were more involved in the most recent years. The physical form was mainly granular (51.6%). The wrappers were a cigarette paper (nine cases) and in one case plastic package; in the other cases, the term of parachute was used without further details. The reason for use was not explained in the majority of cases; two patients indicated using a parachute for faster effect than with a methadone capsule. Clinicians should be aware of this delivery form as the results suggest that it is common and can involve a great variability of drugs.

Signal identification in addictovigilance: the functioning of the French system.

The French addictovigilance network (addictovigilance: surveillance of addiction), composed of 13 Addictovigilance Centres, was set up in 1990 in order to achieve reliable surveillance and evaluation of abuse and dependence cases due to psychoactive substances (alcohol and tobacco excepted). The detection of safety signals is one of the roles of the addictovigilance centres. Signals from spontaneous reports need to be analyzed before further communication. In addictovigilance, signals may be linked to adverse effects (deaths, pathological signs), to products (new psychoactive substances with potentially dangerous effects) or to practices (new administration routes, new contexts of use). These signals are provided by numerous partners among whom the addictovigilance network has to raise awareness about information that may possibly be an alert signal. The watchful attitude of all partners will make it possible that signals will be, after analyze, considered as true alerts. The addictovigilance network collects data, assess the potential for addiction of psychoactive drugs to provide information on the risk of addiction and give opinions for public health decisions (harm reduction or prevention programs, psychoactive substances control, health alerts).