-
Psychopharmacology Jul 2024Zuranolone, a newly FDA-approved synthetic neurosteroid, shows promise in treating depression. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
Zuranolone, a newly FDA-approved synthetic neurosteroid, shows promise in treating depression.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim is to evaluate Zuranolone's efficacy and safety in treating depression.
METHODS
Five databases were searched until September 2023 for relevant randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of zuranolone. The potential risk of bias in the included trials was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias II guideline Data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager Software (RevMan 5.3).
RESULTS
An analysis of eight studies highlights Zuranolone's efficacy in treating depression compared to placebo across most of the outcomes. Notably, the 30mg and 50mg doses demonstrated significant improvements in reducing HAM-D scores by over 50% within a 15-day follow-up (RR) of 1.46 (95% CI [1.27, 1.68], p < 0.0001) and 1.14 (95% CI [1.01, 1.3], p = 0.04). Additionally, the HAM-D ≤ 7% score analysis revealed significant enhancements with the 30mg dose over both 15-day (RR = 1.82, 95% CI [1.44, 2.31], p < 0.0001) and 45-day (RR = 1.43, 95% CI [1.16, 1.77], p = 0.0008) durations. Adverse Events Drug Discontinuation demonstrated no overall significant difference (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: [0.79, 2.23], p = 0.282). Further, specific adverse events, such as headache, showed no significant overall difference between Zuranolone and placebo (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.47], p = 0.47), with dose-dependent analysis revealing less headache in the 30 mg group.
CONCLUSION
Zuranolone demonstrates favorable tolerability and safety, particularly at 30mg and 50mg doses after 15 days, suggesting its potential and effective treatment for depression.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Treatment Outcome; Pregnanolone; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 38802705
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-024-06611-y -
Psychiatry Research Jul 2024
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Psilocybin; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Hallucinogens; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38781672
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115960 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hospitalization; Bias; Counseling; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Bupropion; Smoking Cessation Agents; Smoking
PubMed: 38770804
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Acute traumatic stress symptoms may develop in people who have been exposed to a traumatic event. Although they are usually self-limiting in time, some people develop... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute traumatic stress symptoms may develop in people who have been exposed to a traumatic event. Although they are usually self-limiting in time, some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a severe and debilitating condition. Pharmacological interventions have been proposed for acute symptoms to act as an indicated prevention measure for PTSD development. As many individuals will spontaneously remit, these interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and acceptability of early pharmacological interventions for prevention of PTSD in adults experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 23 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event and presenting acute traumatic stress symptoms, without restriction on their severity. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo, or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Using a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). Our primary outcomes were PTSD severity and dropouts due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included PTSD rate, functional disability and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies that considered four interventions (escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin, temazepam) and involved a total of 779 participants. The largest trial contributed 353 participants and the next largest, 120 and 118 participants respectively. The trials enrolled participants admitted to trauma centres or emergency departments. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low except for attrition rate, which we rated as high-risk. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: escitalopram versus placebo (but limited to secondary outcomes) and hydrocortisone versus placebo. One study compared escitalopram to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. There was inconclusive evidence of any difference in terms of PTSD severity (mean difference (MD) on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS, score range 0 to 136) -11.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.56 to 1.86; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence), dropouts due to adverse events (no participant left the study early due to adverse events; 1 study, 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and PTSD rates (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 13.08; NNTB 37, 95% CI NNTB 15 to NNTH 1; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess functional disability or quality of life. Three studies compared hydrocortisone to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. We found inconclusive evidence on whether hydrocortisone was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo (MD on CAPS -7.53, 95% CI -25.20 to 10.13; I = 85%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduced the risk of developing PTSD (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.38; NNTB 14, 95% CI NNTB 8 to NNTH 5; I = 36%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on the risk of dropping out due to adverse events is inconclusive (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.43; 2 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether hydrocortisone might improve quality of life (MD on the SF-36 (score range 0 to 136, higher is better) 19.70, 95% CI -1.10 to 40.50; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides uncertain evidence regarding the use of escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin and temazepam for people with acute stress symptoms. It is therefore unclear whether these pharmacological interventions exert a positive or negative effect in this population. It is important to note that acute traumatic stress symptoms are often limited in time, and that the lack of data prevents the careful assessment of expected benefits against side effects that is therefore required. To yield stronger conclusions regarding both positive and negative outcomes, larger sample sizes are required. A common operational framework of criteria for inclusion and baseline assessment might help in better understanding who, if anyone, benefits from an intervention. As symptom severity alone does not provide the full picture of the impact of exposure to trauma, assessment of quality of life and functional impairment would provide a more comprehensive picture of the effects of the interventions. The assessment and reporting of side effects may facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of tolerability.
Topics: Humans; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Bias; Adult; Stress Disorders, Traumatic, Acute; Quality of Life; Citalopram; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Placebos
PubMed: 38767196
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013613.pub2 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jul 2024There are currently no reliable biomarkers to predict clinical response to pharmacological treatments of depressive disorders. Peripheral blood 5-hydroxytryptamine... (Review)
Review
There are currently no reliable biomarkers to predict clinical response to pharmacological treatments of depressive disorders. Peripheral blood 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT; serotonin) has been suggested as a biomarker of antidepressant treatment response, but there has not been an attempt to systematically summarize and evaluate the scientific evidence of this hypothesis. In this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Twenty-six relevant studies investigating peripheral 5-HT as an antidepressant biomarker were identified. In all, we did not find robust support for an association between baseline 5-HT and treatment response. Several larger studies with lower risk of bias, however, showed that higher baseline 5-HT was associated with a greater antidepressant response to SSRIs, prompting future studies to investigate this hypothesis. Our results also confirm previous reports that SSRI treatment is associated with a decrease in peripheral 5-HT levels; however, we were not able to confirm that larger decreases of 5-HT are associated with better treatment outcome as results were inconclusive.
Topics: Humans; Serotonin; Antidepressive Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Biomarkers; Treatment Outcome; Depressive Disorder
PubMed: 38762162
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2024.111031 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jul 2024Increasing evidence suggests that the physiological changes of pregnancy may impact pharmacokinetics of antiseizure medications (ASM), and this may affect treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Increasing evidence suggests that the physiological changes of pregnancy may impact pharmacokinetics of antiseizure medications (ASM), and this may affect treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to quantify the pregnancy impact on the ASM pharmacokinetics.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/EMBASE in November 2022 and updated in August 2023 for studies comparing levels of ASM in the same individuals during pregnancy and in the preconception/postpartum period. Alteration ratios between the 3rd trimester and baseline were estimated. We also performed a random-effects meta-analysis calculating between-timepoint differences in mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for dose-adjusted plasma concentrations (C/D ratios). Study quality was assessed using the ClinPK guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 65 studies investigating 15 ASMs in 674 pregnancies were included. The largest differences were reported for lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine and levetiracetam (alteration ratio 0.42, range 0.07-2.45, 0.42, range 0.08-0.82 and 0.52, range 0.04-2.77 respectively): accordingly, C/D levels were lower in the 3rd trimester for lamotrigine, levetiracetam and the main oxcarbazepine metabolite monohydroxycarbazepine (MD = -12.33 × 10, 95%CI = -16.08 to -8.58 × 10 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), p < 0.001, MD = -7.16 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), 95%CI = -9.96 to -4.36, p < 0.001, and MD = -4.87 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), 95%CI = -9.39 to -0.35, p = 0.035, respectively), but not for oxcarbazepine (MD = 1.16 × 10 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), 95%CI = -2.55 to 0.24 × 10, p = 0.10). The quality of studies was acceptable with an average rating score of 11.5.
CONCLUSIONS
Data for lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine (and monohydroxycarbazepine) and levetiracetam demonstrate major changes in pharmacokinetics during pregnancy, suggesting the importance of therapeutic drug monitoring to assist clinicians in optimizing treatment outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Anticonvulsants; Female; Pregnancy Complications; Levetiracetam; Lamotrigine; Epilepsy; Oxcarbazepine
PubMed: 38762161
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2024.111030 -
PloS One 2024Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluvoxamine have been successfully conducted for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluvoxamine have been successfully conducted for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs which were performed to evaluate fluvoxamine and placebo up to January 31, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 was used to perform meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was analyzed and calculated with a random effect model.
RESULTS
We pooled 4,711 participants from six RCTs (2,382 in the fluvoxamine group and 2,329 in the placebo group). Compared to the placebo group, the fluvoxamine group had a significantly lower rate of clinical deterioration (RR, 0.73; P = 0.004; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; I2 = 0%) and hospitalization (RR, 0.76; P = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). In the meantime, compared with the placebo group, fluvoxamine group did not show any higher risk of AEs (P = 0.13 and 0.91, respectively) in safety outcomes analysis. The subgroup analysis showed that fluvoxamine treatment performed more than 200 mg daily appears to be more effective than those performed less than 200 mg daily in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization risks, while not exhibiting higher AE and SAE risks than placebo group.
CONCLUSION
Fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19, especially those who take 200 mg or more daily, is superior to the placebo group in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization, and did not show any higher risk of AEs and SAEs in safety concerns, which might be a promising intervention for COVID-19.
Topics: Fluvoxamine; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38753761
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300512 -
Journal of Clinical PsychopharmacologyPublished studies on the association between lithium use and the decreased risk of major neurocognitive disorders (MNCDs) have shown disparities in their conclusions. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Published studies on the association between lithium use and the decreased risk of major neurocognitive disorders (MNCDs) have shown disparities in their conclusions. We aimed to provide updated evidence of this association.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception until August 31, 2023. All the observational studies evaluating the association between lithium use and MNCD risk were eligible for inclusion. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% prediction intervals were computed using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Eight studies with 377,060 subjects were included in the analysis. In the general population on the association between lithium use versus nonuse and dementia, the OR was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-1.24). Further analysis also demonstrated that lithium use was not associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.31-1.65). When the analysis was restricted to individuals with bipolar disorder to reduce the confounding by clinical indication, lithium exposure was also not associated with a decreased risk of MNCD (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.71-1.15).
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis do not support a significant association between lithium use and the risk of MNCD.
Topics: Humans; Lithium Compounds; Bipolar Disorder; Neurocognitive Disorders; Antimanic Agents; Lithium
PubMed: 38743015
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001863 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2024There is a critical knowledge gap in optimally combining transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and antidepressants to treat patients with major depressive disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a critical knowledge gap in optimally combining transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and antidepressants to treat patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). TMS is effective in treating MDD in patients who have failed at least one antidepressant trial, with accelerated protocols showing faster remission in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although clinicians routinely augment antidepressants with TMS, there is a knowledge gap in stopping versus continuing antidepressants or the dosing strategies when starting or tapering TMS. These considerations are important when considering maintenance TMS (delivered alone or in combination with suitable antidepressants) to maintain remission in MDD after the index course of TMS. As the first step towards filling this knowledge gap, we reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and open-label trials from 2 databases (PubMed/Medline and EMBASE) that compared active TMS combined with a pre-specified antidepressant dosed in the same manner for adults with MDD versus sham TMS combined with the same antidepressant as in the active arm. All studies were published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2023. We excluded case reports, case series, and clinical studies that augmented TMS with antidepressants and vice versa. We found 10 RCTs (n = 654 participants) and performed a meta-analysis. This showed active TMS combined with pre-specified antidepressants had greater efficacy for MDD treatment than sham TMS combined with the same antidepressants as in the active arm (Hedge's g = 1; 95 % CI [0.27, 1.73]). The review and meta-analysis indicate greater short-term efficacy in combining antidepressants with TMS from the get-go in MDD. Given the increasing role of accelerated TMS protocols in expediting remission in MDD and the results of our meta-analysis, we advocate for RCTs examining the short-term and long-term effects of various antidepressant classes on these TMS protocols in MDD. This can also optimize and individualize maintenance TMS protocols to prevent relapse in MDD.
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Depressive Disorder, Major; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38740269
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.05.037 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jul 2024The article presents a systematic literature review on the use and the psychiatric implications of over-the-counter drugs (OTC), prescription-only-medications (POM), and... (Review)
Review
New trends of drug abuse in custodial settings: A systematic review on the misuse of over-the-counter drugs, prescription-only-medications, and new psychoactive substances.
The article presents a systematic literature review on the use and the psychiatric implications of over-the-counter drugs (OTC), prescription-only-medications (POM), and new psychoactive substances (NPS) within custodial settings. The searches wer carried out on 2 November 2022 on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in line with PRISMA guidelines. A total of 538 records were identified, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. Findings showed the most prevalent NPS and OTC and POM classes reported in prisons were synthetic cannabinoids receptor agonists (SCRAs) and opioids, respectively. NPS markets were shown to be in constant evolution following the pace of legislations aimed to reduce their spread. The use of such substances heavily impacts the conditions and rehabilitation of persons in custody, with consequent physical and mental health risks. It is important to raise awareness of the use and misuse of such substances in prisons (i) from an early warning perspective for law enforcement and policy makers (ii) to prompt doctors to cautiously prescribe substances that may be misused (iii) to improve and increase access to treatment provided (iv) to add such substances to routine toxicological screening procedures (v) to improve harm reduction programmes.
Topics: Humans; Psychotropic Drugs; Substance-Related Disorders; Nonprescription Drugs; Prisons; Prescription Drugs; Prisoners
PubMed: 38733894
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105691