La valoración psiquiátrica en los pacientes con intoxicación aguda por cocaína

Emergencias: Revista de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias, ISSN 1137-6821, Vol. 22, Nº. 2, 2010, pags. 83-84
Source: OAI
5 Reads
  • Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 12/2001; 34(4):700 - 700. DOI:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2000.0766h.x · 3.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We present the cost and cost-effectiveness of referral to an alcohol health worker (AHW) and information only control in alcohol misusing patients. The study was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial conducted from April 2001 to March 2003 in an accident and emergency department (AED) in a general hospital in London, England. A total of 599 adults identified as drinking hazardously according to the Paddington Alcohol Test were randomised to referral to an alcohol health worker who delivered a brief intervention (n = 287) or to an information only control (n = 312). Total societal costs, including health and social services costs, criminal justice costs and productivity losses, and clinical measures of alcohol consumption were measured. Levels of drinking were observably lower in those referred to an AHW at 12 months follow-up and statistically significantly lower at 6 months follow-up. Total costs were not significantly different at either follow-up. Referral to AHWs in an AED produces favourable clinical outcomes and does not generate a significant increase in cost. A decision-making approach revealed that there is at least a 65% probability that referral to an AHW is more cost-effective than the information only control in reducing alcohol consumption among AED attendees with a hazardous level of drinking.
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 02/2006; 81(1):47-54. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.05.015 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychotic symptoms (delusions and hallucinations) are reported to be increased among persons using illicit substances, but little is known about the comparative frequency with which the symptoms occur with abuse of different substances. To establish this, we interviewed individuals who had wide experience of commonly used drugs. Four hundred seventy-six intravenous drug users, crack-cocaine users, and heroin snorters recruited via street outreach were interviewed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Model to assess dependence on a number of substances including amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine, and opioids. As a part of this assessment, we assessed a history of delusions and hallucinations in the context of use of, or withdrawal from, these specific substances. From 27.8% to 79.6% users of amphetamine, cannabis, cocaine, and opiates met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised, dependence for that specific substance. The prevalence of psychotic symptoms associated with each specific substance ranged from users with no diagnosis to users with severe dependence as follows: amphetamines (5.2%-100%), cannabis (12.4%-80.0%), cocaine (6.7%-80.7%), and opiates (6.7%-58.2%). The risk of psychotic symptoms increased for respondents who abused (odds ratio [OR], 12.2) or had mild (OR, 17.1), moderate (OR, 47.0), or severe dependence (OR, 114.0) on cocaine when compared to those who were users with no diagnosis. A similar pattern was evident in cannabis, opiate, and amphetamine users. Most users dependent on illicit substances experience psychotic symptoms in the context of use of, or withdrawal from, these substances. Psychotic symptoms increased with the severity of the substance use disorders for all 4 substances. These findings emphasize the importance of developing services to target this population as they are at a heightened risk for developing psychotic symptoms.
    Comprehensive psychiatry 05/2009; 50(3):245-50. DOI:10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.07.009 · 2.25 Impact Factor


5 Reads
Available from